#who are the famous theorists of international relations | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

blackfreethinkers · 4 years

Link

By Kwame Anthony AppiahOct. 7, 2020

How Black is Kamala Harris? That the question gets posed speaks to the ill-defined contours of an ill-defined concept. Ms. Harris, the daughter of an Indian-born mother and a Jamaican-born father, has been called in the media “half Black,” “biracial,” “mixed race” and “Blasian.” In online posts, people have ventured that she’s “partly Black” or — for having attended Howard University, a historically Black school — an “honorary full Black.” Others persist in asking whether she’s “Black enough.”

The old British concept of “political Blackness,” the heyday of which stretched from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, would make nonsense of such questions in a very immediate way: Ms. Harris’s mother, by this definition, is just as Black as her father. For proponents of political Blackness, “Black” was an umbrella term that encompassed minorities with family origins in Asia and the Middle East as well as in Africa and its diaspora. That’s not to say it was the sturdiest of umbrellas: It was never uncontested. Yet it may have lessons for us today.

In Britain, anyway, its legacy remains legible. Three years ago, in a public-awareness campaign designed to increase voter turnout among British minorities (“Operation Black Vote”), Riz Ahmed, a British actor and rapper of Pakistani parentage, appeared on a video. “Blacks don’t vote,” he said. “And by Black people, I mean ethnic minorities of all backgrounds.” The year before, the student union at the University of Kent attracted attention when it promoted Black History Month with the faces of six famous figures: Alongside four British people of African descent, it posted two of Pakistani heritage — the pop star Zayn Malik and Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London.

During its roughly two decades of prominence, the political Blackness movement, taking note of how Britishness had routinely been equated with whiteness, was especially devoted to the “Afro-Asian” alliance. (In Britain, the term “Asian” defaults to South Asian.) During the 1980s, the movement’s inclusive usage of “Black” went mainstream in Britain. The Commission for Racial Equality, a public body established in 1976, decided that “Asian” would be a subcategory of “Black”; other such organizations followed suit. The bien-pensant among the children of empire started styling themselves as Black, whether or not they had sub-Saharan ancestors.

Of course, this broadened sense of “Black” wasn’t exactly a novelty. Malcolm X, in a speech from 1964, heralded Black revolutionaries around the world and explained: “When I say Black, I mean nonwhite. Black, brown, red, or yellow.” Anyone who had been colonized or exploited by the Europeans qualified. And Malcolm X, in turn, was drawing on an internationalist tradition captured six decades earlier by W.E.B. Du Bois. “The problem of the 20th century,” he wrote, “is the problem of the color line; the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia and Africa, in America and the islands of the sea.”

In Britain, this capacious usage of “Black” scanted the enormous differences among the nation’s nonwhite minorities. But that was exactly its point, and its power. The great cultural theorist Stuart Hall — you could see this elegant figure on British television in those days, with his close-cropped beard and well-fitted blazers, lecturing for the Open University — was always warning against the way “race” presented itself as a natural fact about human beings. Using “Black” as an umbrella term, he felt, would weaken such illusions: It would helpfully emphasize the “immense diversity and differentiation of the historical and cultural experience of black subjects.”

In an influential 1988 essay on “black cultural politics,” for example, Mr. Hall celebrated a film by John Akomfrah, whose father (like mine) had been a Ghanaian politician. Yet he also cited the writer Hanif Kureishi’s two collaborations with the director Stephen Frears, “My Beautiful Laundrette” and “Sammy and Rosie Get Laid,” as significant contributions to Black cinema. That neither Mr. Kureishi nor Mr. Frears was of African descent didn’t make the work less Black.

Only such an inclusive conception of Blackness, proponents maintained, could effectively counter an exclusive conception of Britishness. Ambalavaner Sivanandan, a political thinker and the longtime director of the London-based Institute of Race Relations, saw strategic benefits in “the forging of black as a common color of colonial and racist exploitation.” As a young man in the late 1950s, Siva, as he was known to his friends, left behind the ethnic strife of Sri Lanka and went to London, only to witness attacks by white youth on West Indians in the Notting Hill neighborhood. “I knew then I was black,” he would write.

Opponents of political Blackness tended to suspect that Asians were being forced into a template set by Afro-Caribbeans. In the early 1990s, the sociologist Tariq Modood cited a survey that suggested only a third of British Asians identified as Black, and argued that Asians suffered more from racial prejudice in British society than people of African descent did. White working-class youth were drawn to Afro-Caribbean culture, he said, while turning against Asians. It galled him, too, to see anti-racist programs focused on Afro-Caribbeans when most non-white British people were Asian.

And there’s no doubt that the social reality on the street didn’t always harmonize with the high-minded aspirations to shared struggle. Claire Alexander, a sociologist at the University of Manchester, has dryly recalled that when she did fieldwork in the late 1980s about how Black British youth created their cultural identities, “one of my main informants, Darnell, commented, laughing, ‘you know, Claire, Blacks and Asians don’t get on.’”

Yet the various criticisms of political Blackness presented quandaries of their own. Sure, the umbrella concept didn’t give voice to all the differences it encompassed, but it wasn’t meant to supplant the many other sources of identity in people’s lives. Besides, a term like “Asian” itself ignored the immense internal diversity of the group it designated. Among British Asians, Sikhs and Hindus didn’t vote the way Muslims did. Islamophobia targeted Asians but was also promulgated by Asians.

Mr. Hall, warning against the fiction that “all black people are the same,” had no illusions that Afro-Caribbeans were a cohesive group, either. When he was growing up in Jamaica, he recalled, nobody was ever called “black,” but colorism — prejudice against those with a dark skin tone — was rampant: His grandmother could distinguish 15 hues of brown. Social groups, he knew, are fractal. By the logic of culture, creed, color or kinship, you could always split them into smaller groups. So why not lump them into larger ones, too?

In Britain today, the arguments for splitting and lumping — for specificity and commonality — remain unresolved. The Black Students’ Campaign, the largest organization of nonwhite students in Britain and Europe, represents students of Asian and Arab heritage as well as those of Caribbean and African descent. A few years ago, chastened by critics of the “Black” umbrella, the organization decided that it needed a new name and asked members for suggestions.

Those Black History Month posts at the University of Kent certainly came under fire for including people of Pakistani heritage. “Ill-thought and misdirected” was an institutional tweet from Black History Month UK. The Kent student union “unreservedly” apologized on its Facebook page. The offending faces were purged.

When Riz Ahmed appeared in the public service announcement for Operation Black Vote, some people were eager to see his face purged, too. The journalist Yomi Adegoke remarked, “When I’m followed around in an Afro-Caribbean hair shop or newsagent, an Asian vendor forgets all about political blackness and becomes far more occupied with blackness-blackness.”

But there have been voices for lumping, too. “As children in the 1980s,” Mr. Ahmed wrote somberly, “when my brother and I were stopped near our home by a skinhead who decided to put a knife to my brother’s throat, we were black.” Emma Dabiri, an author and broadcaster (“Irish-Nigerian” is how she designates herself), recently called for “the identification of affinities and points of shared interest beyond categories that were invented to divide us.” And, as it happens, the Black Students’ Campaign never found a replacement for “Black,” and the group still includes Arabs and Asians.

There’s a reason that “political Blackness” never gained much purchase in the United States. In Britain, what matters most is whether or not you’re white; in America, what matters most is whether or not you’re Black.

Still, in the United States today, similar debates roil over “people of color” and the acronym now in favor, BIPOC (for Black, Indigenous and people of color). Does such nomenclature suggest that all nonwhite people are interchangeable? Indian-Americans have a household income that’s two-thirds higher than the national median; for Black people, it’s a third lower. Should these groups share an umbrella? Does the language of generality blunt the sharp analysis of racial disparities we need?

Damon Young, the author of the memoir “What Doesn’t Kill You Makes You Blacker,” calls “people of color” a “valueless catchall that extinguishes identity instead of amplifying it.” Jason Parham, in Wired, has dismissed “people of color” as an “idiomatic casserole of cultures and identities.” If you mean Black people, say Black people, such critics argue. And they have a point.

The hitch is that the term “Black people,” too, is a casserole of cultures and identities. Anti-Black racism can be a useful concept. But it’s equally an umbrella, casting its shade over the fact that in socioeconomic terms, British Caribbean immigrants and their children and grandchildren in the United States have fared better than “native” African-Americans and that those from the French- and Spanish-speaking Caribbean have fared worse. It also obscures the fact that colorism, even within Black America, can entail another set of disparities in treatment.

And while some African-American critics think “people of color” is hopelessly expansive, others think the same of “African-American.” The political movement ADOS, which stands for American Descendants of Slavery, wants to establish what it considers a properly “cohesive” notion of Black identity, fencing out people like Barack Obama and Kamala Harris as “New Black” usurpers of a native lineage of suffering. (For some of those who take Blackness as a badge of dispossession, Ms. Harris’s father’s elite education makes him a suspect member of the Jamaican comprador bourgeoisie.) Every tribe, it’s clear, contains other tribes. It’s umbrellas all the way down.

Reflecting on political Blackness, then, should encourage us to retrain some of our reflexes. The identity group that we invoke should be “right-sized” to our needs and aims. Sometimes we’ll want to contract a category for purposes of analysis; sometimes we’ll have reason to expand a category for purposes of solidarity. Indeed, if the context is white nationalism and the anxieties of membership in an eroding demographic majority, “people of color” may be an invaluable analytic term. The salient distinction there is between white and nonwhite.

What about the ADOS movement? If ADOS activists flounder — they have fixed their gaze on slavery reparations and are intent that the wrong people don’t get in on the action — it will be because their certain-Black-lives-matter-more approach proves politically misjudged. An ambitious goal like reparations may require broad support, and in turn a broad conception of “Black.” Skeptics might think that, as with the prospectors and fortune hunters of “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,” ADOS’s determination to keep the rewards for themselves imperils the chances of anyone getting them.

But let’s say you’re concerned about colorism. You might have been among those who were indignant when Zoe Saldana, a light-skinned Black woman, was cast in a biopic about Nina Simone, a dark-skinned Black woman. To talk about such prejudice, you’ll have to insist on one of the ways in which all Black people aren’t alike. You’ll have to split rather than lump.

Getting the identity aperture wrong — drawing a circle that’s too wide or too narrow, given our agenda — can lead to confusion or futility. When we’re told that about a third of Latinos support President Trump, should we wonder whether something has gone terribly wrong with Joe Biden’s ethnic outreach? Or should we wonder whether a demographic category that suggests a similarity of interests between Ted Cruz and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may — for these purposes, anyway — be eliding distinctions that matter more?

For these purposes is always the crucial qualifier. One’s purposes can involve coalition politics, cultural interpretation or socioeconomic precision. The point is that none of these identity terms is stenciled by the brute facts of the social world; rather, they stencil themselves upon the social world. Each is invariably a decision — a decision made jointly with others — that arises from our interests and objectives. You don’t like the available identity options? Start a movement; you may be able to change them.

By the cultural logic, or illogic, of race, Kamala Harris, like Barack Obama, counts both as biracial and as Black. Among major-party vice-presidential candidates, she qualifies as the first Asian-American, the first Indian-American, the first African-American, the first woman of color. Identities, of course, are multiple, interactive and, yes, subject to revision. As the architects of political Blackness rightly insisted, collective identities are always the subject of contestation and negotiation.

Political Blackness may have had its day, but we’re still coming to grips with its central insight: Blackness, like whiteness, has never not been political.

#politics and government

2 notes · View notes

gnosticgnoob · 5 years

Text

Variations on a Theme: "The Weird vs The Quantifiable" -- Aggregated Commentary from within the Gutenberg Galaxy

The pursuit of examining the world through philosophy, mathematics, and science tends to be seen as expanding the borders of what is known and quantified, conquering the territory of what is not yet known. In this pursuit, the investigator encounters wonder or the "weird", and what ideologically separates some philosophers and scientists from others is whether the investigator sets aside the weird as a misunderstood quirk of what is not yet known but still knowable, or the investigator takes into account the weird as a fundamental, permanent attribute of the landscape of inquiry that may perhaps always represent factors which intrinsically and inescapably evade knowledge and literary explanation, not as a bug of our understanding but as a feature of the true ontological state of affairs. The former mindset supposes that with more time and rigor, our inquiry will finally arrive at a sort of epistemological/ontological "bedrock" that dispels any sense of the bizarre, the latter treats scientific inquiry itself as necessitating the injection of a sort of subjective poetry or play to adequately do justice to the full reality of what is observed and described for our purposes, without ever expecting that we will hit such bedrock. Materialism/scientism perhaps would posit that any inclusion of the mystical or poetic in the language we use to describe the world is inappropriate, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-intellectual, or maladaptive; the mystic posits conversely that to exclude the poetic and not make room for the weird is maladaptive.

I have here a collection of excerpts from other thinkers that I think work together to allude to the mystical as a permanent fixture of our endeavors for clarification through experimentation and language, or at least suggest that a more "mystical" mindset will always be more useful than one that is conversely more in the vein of materialism/scientism trying to arrive at a "final technical vocabulary":

-------------------------------------

“We say the map is different from the territory. But what is the territory? Operationally, somebody went out with a retina or a measuring stick and made representations which were then put on paper. What is on the paper map is a representation of what was in the retinal representation of the man who made the map; and as you push the question back, what you find is an infinite regress, an infinite series of maps. The territory never gets in at all. […] Always, the process of representation will filter it out so that the mental world is only maps of maps, ad infinitum.” --Gregory Bateson, English anthropologist, social scientist, linguist, visual anthropologist, semiotician, and cyberneticist whose work intersected that of many other fields. His writings include Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972) and Mind and Nature (1979). In Palo Alto, California, Bateson and colleagues developed the double-bind theory of schizophrenia. Bateson's interest in systems theory forms a thread running through his work. He was one of the original members of the core group of the Macy conferences in Cybernetics (1941- 1960), and the later set on Group Processes (1954 - 1960), where he represented the social and behavioral sciences; he was interested in the relationship of these fields to epistemology.

-------------------------------------

“The mind is somehow a co-creator in the process of reality through acts of language. Language is very, very mysterious. It is true magic. People run all over the place looking for paranormal abilities, but notice that when I speak if your internal dictionary matches my internal dictionary, that my thoughts cross through the air as an acoustical pressure wave and are reconstructed inside your cerebral cortex as your thought. Your understanding of my words. Telepathy exists; it is just that the carrier wave is small mouth noises.” --Terence McKenna, "Eros And The Eschaton". McKenna was called the "Timothy Leary of the '90s", an American ethnobotanist, mystic, psychonaut, lecturer, author, and an advocate for the responsible use of naturally occurring psychedelic plants. He spoke and wrote about a variety of subjects, including psychedelic drugs, plant-based entheogens, shamanism, metaphysics, alchemy, language, philosophy, culture, technology, environmentalism, and the theoretical origins of human consciousness. -------------------------------------

“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” --Niels Bohr, Danish physicist who made foundational contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum theory, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. Bohr developed the Bohr model of the atom, in which he proposed that energy levels of electrons are discrete and that the electrons revolve in stable orbits around the atomic nucleus but can jump from one energy level (or orbit) to another. Although the Bohr model has been supplanted by other models, its underlying principles remain valid. He conceived the principle of complementarity: that items could be separately analysed in terms of contradictory properties, like behaving as a wave or a stream of particles. -------------------------------------

“We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” --Werner Heisenberg, German theoretical physicist known for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which he published in 1927. Heisenberg was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics. He also made important contributions to the theories of the hydrodynamics of turbulent flows, the atomic nucleus, ferromagnetism, cosmic rays, and subatomic particles, and he was instrumental in planning the first West German nuclear reactor at Karlsruhe. -------------------------------------

“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.” --Max Planck, German theoretical physicist whose discovery of energy quanta won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918. Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame as a physicist rests primarily on his role as the originator of quantum theory; the discovery of Planck's constant enabled him to define a new universal set of physical units (such as the Planck length and the Planck mass), all based on fundamental physical constants upon which much of quantum theory is based. -------------------------------------

“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.” --Daniel Dennett, American philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. A member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, he is referred to as one of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism", along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. -------------------------------------

“Things themselves become so burdened with attributes, signs, allusions that they finally lose their own form. Meaning is no longer read in an immediate perception, the figure no longer speaks for itself; between the knowledge which animates it and the form into which it is transposed, a gap widens. It is free for the dream.” --Michel Foucault, French philosopher, historian of ideas, social theorist, and literary critic. Foucault's theories primarily address the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. His thought has influenced academics, especially those working in communication studies, anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, literary theory, feminism, and critical theory. Though often cited as a post-structuralist and postmodernist, Foucault rejected these labels. -------------------------------------

“When the mind projects names and concepts on what is seen through direct perception, confusion and delusion result.” --Patanjali, sage in Hinduism, thought to be the author of a number of Sanskrit works. The greatest of these are the Yoga Sutras, a classical yoga text. -------------------------------------

“The man who says that he has no illusions has at least that one.” --Joseph Conrad, Under Western Eyes (1911). Polish-British writer regarded as one of the greatest novelists to write in the English language. Conrad wrote stories and novels, many with a nautical setting, that depict trials of the human spirit in the midst of what he saw as an impassive, inscrutable universe. Heart of Darkness is among is most famous works. Conrad is considered an early modernist, though his works contain elements of 19th-century realism. His narrative style and anti-heroic characters have influenced numerous authors, and many films have been adapted from, or inspired by, his works. Numerous writers and critics have commented that Conrad's fictional works, written largely in the first two decades of the 20th century, seem to have anticipated later world events. -------------------------------------

“I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.” --Richard P. Feynman, American theoretical physicist, known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics for which he proposed the parton model. For contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He assisted in the development of the atomic bomb during World War II and became known to a wide public as a member of the commission that investigated the Challenger shuttle disaster. Along with his work in theoretical physics, Feynman has been credited with pioneering the field of quantum computing and introducing the concept of nanotechnology. -------------------------------------

“The critical ontology of ourselves has to be considered not, certainly, as a theory, a doctrine, nor even as a permanent body of knowledge that is accumulating; it has to be conceived as an attitude, an ethos, a philosophical life in which the critique of what we are is at one and the same time the historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on us and an experiment with the possibility of going beyond them.” --Michel Foucault -------------------------------------

“In mystical literature such self-contradictory phrases as ‘dazzling obscurity,’ 'whispering silence,’ 'teeming desert,’ are continually met with. They prove that not conceptual speech, but music rather, is the element through which we are best spoken to by mystical truth. Many mystical scriptures are indeed little more than musical compositions. “He who would hear the voice of Nada, 'the Soundless Sound,’ and comprehend it, he has to learn the nature of Dharana…. When to himself his form appears unreal, as do on waking all the forms he sees in dreams, when he has ceased to hear the many, he may discern the ONE—the inner sound which kills the outer…. For then the soul will hear, and will remember. And then to the inner ear will speak THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE…. And now thy SELF is lost in SELF, THYSELF unto THYSELF, merged in that SELF from which thou first didst radiate.… Behold! thou hast become the Light, thou hast become the Sound, thou art thy Master and thy God. Thou art THYSELF the object of thy search: the VOICE unbroken, that resounds throughout eternities, exempt from change, from sin exempt, the seven sounds in one, the VOICE OF THE SILENCE. Om tat Sat.” (H.P. Blavatsky, The Voice of the Silence). These words, if they do not awaken laughter as you receive them, probably stir chords within you which music and language touch in common. Music gives us ontological messages which non-musical criticism is unable to contradict, though it may laugh at our foolishness in minding them. There is a verge of the mind which these things haunt; and whispers therefrom mingle with the operations of our understanding, even as the waters of the infinite ocean send their waves to break among the pebbles that lie upon our shores.” --William James, Varieties of Religious Experience. American philosopher and psychologist, and the first educator to offer a psychology course in the United States. James was a leading thinker of the late nineteenth century, one of the most influential U.S. philosophers, and has been labeled the "Father of American psychology". Along with Charles Sanders Peirce, James established the philosophical school known as pragmatism. James also developed the philosophical perspective known as radical empiricism. James' work has influenced intellectuals such as Émile Durkheim, W. E. B. Du Bois, Edmund Husserl, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Rorty, as well as former US President Jimmy Carter. -------------------------------------

“Metaphysical assertions, however, are statements of the psyche, and are therefore psychological. … Whenever the Westerner hears the word ‘psychological’, it always sounds to him like ‘only psychological.’” --Carl Jung, “Psyche and Symbol”. Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who founded analytical psychology. Jung's work was influential in the fields of psychiatry, anthropology, archaeology, literature, philosophy, and religious studies. Jung worked as a research scientist at the famous Burghölzli hospital, during which time he came to the attention of Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. The two men conducted a lengthy correspondence and collaborated, for a while, on a joint vision of human psychology. Among the central concepts of analytical psychology is individuation—the lifelong psychological process of differentiation of the self out of each individual's conscious and unconscious elements, a process which Jung considered to be the main task of human development. He created some of the best known psychological concepts, including synchronicity, archetypal phenomena, the collective unconscious, the psychological complex, and extraversion and introversion. -------------------------------------

“God is a psychic fact of immediate experience, otherwise there would never have been any talk of God. The fact is valid in itself, requiring no non-psychological proof and inaccessible to any form of non-psychological criticism. It can be the most immediate and hence the most real of experiences, which can be neither ridiculed nor disproved.” --Carl Jung -------------------------------------

“Daniel C. Dennett defines religions at the beginning of his Breaking the Spell as ‘social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought,’ which as far as Christianity goes is rather like beginning a history of the potato by defining it as a rare species of rattlesnake…. He also commits the blunder of believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world, which is like seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus.” --Terry Eagleton, Reason, Faith, and Revolution. British literary theorist, critic, and public intellectual, Eagleton has published over forty books, but remains best known for Literary Theory: An Introduction (1983). The work elucidated the emerging literary theory of the period, as well as arguing that all literary theory is necessarily political.

#occult #scientism #mysticism #esoterica #philosophy

11 notes · View notes

megacraigblog-blog · 4 years

Text

Domestic Flights USA: Busiest Airports in the US

Domestic Flights USA

The United States is the world’s largest aviation market. About 811.4 million domestic passengers traveled within the United States as of 2019. This is a considerable large number when you consider the population of the country. Domestic flights connecting multiple cities generate the flexibility of travel. This ability to travel from one city to another gives each individual the required capabilities to engage in economic activities. This is probably one of the biggest reasons why the US is home to some of the largest business airline operators in the world. Some of the most famous airlines of the many airlines operating flights include names like Southwest Airlines, Delta Airline, American Airlines, United Airlines and so on. These four airlines combined have about 60 percent of the entire domestic flights USA traffic.

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport services the largest number of passengers in the world with 103.9 million passengers annually. Atlanta international airport serves both domestic and international customers. The airport prides itself in being one of the most efficient airports in the United States with quick and easy movement of passengers in and out of the airport. The airport has been constantly rated by its users as one of the best airports to travel. The hassle free streamlined process has made the travelers feel comfortable and relaxed while flying in and out of the airport.

Atlanta International airport is Delta Airlines largest hub. Atlanta Airlines have been providing the people of the United States access to destinations across the United States and the world. By booking from or through Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport the traveler will have a better chance to excess the best deals available at the time of booking. Almost all the major airlines have flights to, from, through Atlanta International Airport. The benefit of economy airlines that operate cheap flights within the United States can be utilized by passengers while booking to, from, through Atlanta International Airport.

Los Angeles International Airport

Los Angeles International Airport is the second busiest airport in the United States. Los Angeles International Airport serves more than 84.5 million passengers every year. The Los Angeles International Airport serves both domestic and international passengers. Los Angeles is a big metropolitan city, the city is home to a large number of celebrities and businessmen, who regularly engage in traveling to both domestic and international destinations for leisure or as part of work. Los Angeles International Airport also sees a huge influx of domestic and international foreigners, businessmen, job seekers who want to work, do business, or just chill in Los Angeles. Los Angeles also serves as a traveling pad for people who wish to travel to the state of California, the city more or less acts as a welcome gate to the state of California. Being the second busiest airport does come with its advantages, there is a better chance of getting affordable business class flights to destinations across the US.

O’Hare International Airport

O’Hare International Airport is one of the busiest airports in the United States that services the residence of the city of Chicago. The airport services about 79.8 million passengers every year. O’Hare International Airport is consistently ranked high among frequent travelers as one of the best airports in the United States. Chicago is a big city that attracts people from across the states for commerce and leisure. Started operation in 1944, the airport has claimed the little of the busiest airport in the US from the year 1963 to 1998.The people in Chicago love to travel and O’Hare International Airport is naturally their first choice. The Pride and Joy of Traveling through O’Hare International Airport, I guess!. Airlines sometimes offer cheap airtickets to flights traveling to other states from O’Hare International Airport.

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)

Dallas is one of the busiest cities in the country. It is the third biggest city in Texas state. Dallas is world famous for its small and medium scale enterprises, that is probably why Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport has remained the busiest airport in Texas. Roughly 67 million passengers travel through the airport every year. The numbers are gradually growing every year. The Dallas airport has a skytrain that helps passengers to travel to and from the airport in a convenient manner. Dallas/Fort Worth international Airport is American Airlines largest hub. Dallas Airport is known among its passengers as a tech friendly airport that offers customers easy access to various services at an affordable price rate.

Denver International Airport

Denver International Airport is the largest airport in the United States in terms of area and the second largest in the world, it covers a total area of 33,500 acres. The location of the airport has made it an ideal location for people looking to travel domestic flights. The Airport serves 61.4 million travelers every year. It is the only airport that has a talking gargoyle at the baggage claim area. Airport is considered one of the most modern airports in the country, if not the world. The airport interestingly has a blue giant statue of a horse, the conspiracy theorist believes that the horse statue actually killed its creator. Not just this but there are many conspiracy theories surrounding Denver International Airport, check it out yourself.

Conclusion

American lead the world in terms of aviation travel, especially domestic aviation travel. American enjoy traveling from one city to the other using domestic airlines, probably due to the lack of time or convenience. Another reason could be due to the vastness of the land in hand. Americans are blessed with excellent infrastructure that could make such a huge volume of travel possible. Domestic flights USA help people and businesses in the United States to get better connectivity to all the cities and towns across the US. This could be the reason why the United States is leading the world in aviation and related areas of innovation.

#Domestic Flights USA #airtickets #economy class flights #business class flights

1 note · View note

bluewatsons · 4 years

Text

Elaine Hatfield & Richard L. Rapson, Culture and Passionate Love, in F. Deutsch, M. Boehnke, U. Kühnen, & K. Boehnke (Eds.), Rendering borders obsolete: Cross-cultural and cultural psychology as an interdisciplinary, multi-method endeavor: Proceedings from the 19th International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (2011)

Abstract

For more than 4,000 years, poets and storytellers have sung of the delights and sufferings of love and lust. This chapter reviews what scholars from various disciplines have discovered about the nature of passionate love and sexual desire. Anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists have assumed that passionate love is a cultural universal. Cultural researchers, historians, and social psychologists have emphasized the stunning diversity in the way passionate love and sexual desire have been viewed and experienced. Culture, ethnicity and the rules passed down by political and religious authorities have a profound impact on the way people think about and act out love and sex. Marriage for love and sex for pleasure have always been deeply threatening to political and religious leaders who have feared the individualistic implications of permissive approaches to romance and passion. Individualism and personal choice are seen as the enemies of order and authority; such freedom are deemed heretical, sinful, dangerous, and an invitation to chaos, selfishness, and anarchy. The fight over the rules governing love, marriage, divorce, and sex stands as one of history’s central and most powerful themes. Today, however, in the era of widespread travel, global capitalism, and the World Wide Web, many of these traditional cross-cultural differences seem to be disappearing. Authority is giving way nearly everywhere to increased freedom, particularly in the personal realm, in the world of passion. Is the erosion of traditional authority and strict personal rules really happening—and if so what does that portend for personal and societal futures?

In all cultures, men and women feel the stirrings of passionate love and sexual desire. Yet despite its universality, culture has been found to have a profound impact on people’s definitions of passionate love and on the way they think, feel, and behave when faced with appropriate partners in settings designed to spark such feelings. Cross-cultural studies provide a glimpse into the complex world of passionate love and increase our understanding of the extent to which people’s emotional lives are written in their cultural and personal histories, as well as “writ in their genes.”

Defining Passionate Love

The Sufi poet Jelaluddin Rumi, who was born in Afghanistan in 1207 A.D., contended, “whoever has been taught the secrets of love is sworn to silence with lips sealed.” Nonetheless, Rumi penned ecstatic missives celebrating the glories of love (Mathnavi and Diwan-I-Shams). In this snippet, he rhapsodizes:

With love, bitter turns into sweetness. With love, dregs turn into honey. . .

With love, thorns become flowers. With love, vinegar becomes wine. . . .

With love, misery turns into happiness.

In all cultures, people distinguish between two kinds of love: “passionate love” and “companionate love.” Passionate love (sometimes called “obsessive love,” “infatuation,” “lovesickness,” or “being-in-love”) is the variety of love with which we will be concerned in this paper. We will not discuss companionate love, a deeper, more intimate, and longer lasting variety of love and friendship.

Passionate love is a powerful emotional state. It has been defined as:

A state of intense longing for union with another. Passionate love is a complex functional whole including appraisals or appreciations, subjective feelings, expressions, patterned physiological processes, action tendencies, and instrumental behaviors. Reciprocated love (union with the other) is associated with fulfillment and ecstasy. Unrequited love (separation) is associated with feelings of emptiness, anxiety, and despair (Hatfield & Rapson, 2005, p. 71).

The Passionate Love Scale (PLS) was designed to tap into the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral indicants of such longings (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). The PLS has been translated and utilized by researchers in Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. The PLS has been found to be a useful measure of passionate love with men and women of all ages, in a variety of cultures, and has been found to correlate well with certain well-defined patterns of neural activation (see Bartels & Zeki, 2000; Fisher, 2004; Hatfield, Rapson, & Martel, 2007; Hatfield & Rapson, 2009; Landis & O’Shea, 2000).

Theoretical Understandings of Passionate Love

Passionate Love: A Cultural Universal

Passionate love is as old as humankind. Love poems have been discovered on the outskirts of the Valley of Kings. Written during Egypt’s New Kingdom (1539-1075 B.C.E.) but surely composed much earlier, these songs (recorded on cuneiform tablets) speak to lovers today. Consider this fragment:

The Flower Song

To hear your voice is pomegranate wine to me.

I draw life from hearing it. Could I see you with every glance, It would be better for me Than to eat or drink.2

Today, most cultural theorists consider passionate love to be a universal emotion, transcending culture and time (Hatfield & Rapson, 2005; Jankowiak, 1995; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). Jankowiak and Fischer (1992), for example, drew a sharp distinction between “romantic passion” and “simple lust.” They proposed that both passion and lust are universal feelings. Drawing on a sampling of tribal societies from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, they found that in almost all of these far-flung societies, young lovers talked about passionate love, recounted tales of love, sang love songs, and spoke of the longings and anguish of infatuation. When passionate affections clashed with parents’ or elders’ wishes, young couples often eloped. Cultural anthropologists have recorded folk conceptions of love in such diverse cultures as Indonesia, Morocco, Nigeria, the Fulbe of North Cameroun, the People’s Republic of China, Trinidad, Turkey, the Mangrove (an aboriginal Australian community), the Mangaia in the Cook Islands, Palau in Micronesia, and the Taita of Kenya (see Jankowiak, 1995, for a review of this research). A number of studies document that in both tribal and modern societies, people’s conceptions of passionate love are surprisingly similar (Neto et al., 2000).

Passionate Love: Cultural Differences

Americans are preoccupied with love—or so cross-cultural observers once claimed. In a famous quip, Linton (1936) mocked Americans for their naïve idealization of romantic love and their assumption that romantic love is a prerequisite for marriage:

All societies recognize that there are occasional violent, emotional attachments between persons of opposite sex, but our present American culture is practically the only one which has attempted to capitalize these, and make them the basis for marriage. . . . The hero of the modern American movie is always a romantic lover, just as the hero of the old Arab epic is always an epileptic. A cynic may suspect that in any ordinary population the percentage of individuals with a capacity for romantic love of the Hollywood type was about as large as that of persons able to throw genuine epileptic fits. (p. 175)

Throughout the world, a spate of commentators once echoed Linton’s claim that the idealization of passionate love is a peculiarly Western institution.

Background. The world’s cultures differ profoundly in the extent to which they emphasize individualism or collectivism (although many cultural researchers focus on related concepts such as independence vs. interdependence, modernism vs. traditionalism, urbanism vs. ruralism, affluence vs. poverty, or a family focus vs. an individualistic focus). Individualistic cultures such as the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, and the countries of Northern and Western Europe tend to focus on personal goals. Collectivist cultures such as China, many African and Latin American nations, Greece, southern Italy, and the Pacific Islands, on the other hand, press their members to subordinate their personal interests to those of the group (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Triandis and his colleagues point out that in individualistic cultures, young people are allowed to “do their own thing.” In collectivist cultures, the group comes first.

Hsu (1953, 1985) and Doi (1963, 1973) contended that passionate love is a Western phenomenon, virtually unknown in China and Japan, and so incompatible with Asian values and customs that it is unlikely ever to gain a foothold among young Asians. Hsu (1953) wrote: “An American asks, ‘How does my heart feel?’ A Chinese asks, ‘What will other people say?’” (p. 50). Hsu pointed out that the Chinese generally use the term “love” to describe not a respectable, socially sanctioned relationship, but an illicit liaison between a man and a woman. Chu (1985; Chu & Ju, 1993) also argued that although romantic love and compatibility are of paramount importance in mate selection in America, in China such feelings matter little. Traditionally, parents and go-betweens arranged young peoples’ marriages. Parents’ primary concern was not love and compatibility but men dang hu dui. Do the families possess the same social status? Are they compatible? Will the marriage bring some social or financial advantage to the two families? (A note: Later in this chapter, we will discuss the fact that since the 1950s, in the wake of globalization, Chinese attitudes and values have begun to undergo revolutionary changes.)

On the basis of such testimony, cross-cultural researchers once contended that romantic love is common only in modern, industrialized countries. It should be less valued in traditional cultures with strong, extended family ties (Simmons, Vom Kolke, & Shimizu, 1986). It should also be more common in modern, industrialized countries than in developing countries (Goode, 1959; Rosenblatt, 1967). In recent years, cultural researchers have begun to test these provocative hypotheses.

Recent Research on Culture and Passionate Love

Recently, cultural researchers have begun to investigate the impact of culture on people’s definitions of love, what people desire in romantic partners, their likelihood of falling in love, the intensity of their passion, and their willingness to acquiesce in arranged marriages versus insisting on marrying for love. From this preliminary research it appears that, although a few cultural differences do in fact exist, cultures frequently turn out to be more similar in their profoundest of feelings than one might expect. Let us now turn to this research.

The Meaning of Passionate Love

Shaver, Wu, and Schwartz (1991) interviewed young people in America, Italy, and the People’s Republic of China about the way they viewed love. They found that Americans and Italians tended to equate love with happiness and to assume that both passionate and companionate love were intensely pleasurable experiences. Students in Beijing, China, possessed a darker view of love. In the Chinese language, there are few “happy-love” words; love is associated with sadness. Not surprisingly, then, the Chinese men and women interviewed by Shaver and his colleagues tended to associate passionate love with ideographic words such as infatuation, unrequited love, nostalgia, and sorrow love. Other cultural researchers agree that cultural values may, indeed, have a profound impact on the subtle shadings of meaning assigned to the construct of “love” (Cohen, 2001; Kim & Hatfield, 2004; Kitayama, 2002; Luciano, 2003; Nisbet, 2003; Oyserman, Kemmelmeier, & Coon, 2002; Weaver & Ganong, 2004). A few cultural researchers argue, for example, that romantic love is more important in modern, industrialized, individualistic cultures (Levine et al., 1995), in Latin cultures (Ferrer Pérez et al., 2008), and in European cultures than in Asian or Indian samples (Simmons et al., 1986, 1988; Medora et al., 2002), or in societies where men and women possess sexual equality (DeMunck & Korotayev, 1999).

There is, however, considerable debate as to how important such differences are. When social psychologists explored folk conceptions of love in a variety of cultures—including the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, Micronesia, Palau, and Turkey, as well as a variety of other nations—they concluded that people in the various cultures possessed surprisingly similar views of love and other “feelings of the heart” (for a review of this research, see Contreas et al., 1996; Fischer, Wang, Kennedy, & Cheng, 1998; Jankowiak, 1995; Kim & Hatfield, 2004; Shaver, Murdaya, & Fraley, 2001; Xu et al., 2008). In a typical study, for example, Shaver and his colleagues (2001) argued that love and sexual mating, reproduction, and parenting are fundamental issues for all humans (pp. 219-220). To test the notion that passionate and companionate love are cultural universals, they conducted a “prototype” study to determine (1) what Indonesian (compared to American) men and women considered to be “basic” emotions, and (2) the meaning they ascribed to these emotions. Starting with 404 Indonesian perasaan hati (emotion names or “feelings of the heart”) they asked people to sort the words into basic emotion categories. As predicted, the Indonesians came up with the same five emotions that Americans consider to be basic: joy, love, sadness, fear, and anger. Furthermore, when asked about the meanings of “love,” Indonesian men and women (like their American counterparts) were able to distinguish passionate love (asmara, or sexual/desire/arousal) from companionate love (cinta, or affection/liking/fondness). There were a few differences in the American and Indonesian lexicons, however:

The Indonesian conception of love may place more emphasis on yearning and desire than the American conception, perhaps because the barriers to consummation are more formidable in Indonesia, which is a more traditional and mostly Muslim country (p. 219).

Why are these diverse societies so similar in their views of love? Perhaps love is indeed a cultural universal. Or perhaps the times they are “a-changin’”. One impact of globalization (and the ubiquitous MTV, Hollywood and Bollywood movies, chat rooms, and foreign travel) may be to ensure that when people throughout the world speak of “passionate love,” they may well be talking about much the same thing. We would argue that culture and historical pressures produce visions of passionate love that are variations on a theme. Shading, melody, and tempo may vary with culture, but the underlying architecture of the mind may remain the same. Cultural traditions and values may affect romantic visions, how one describes one’s feelings when in love, how demonstrative people are in displaying their love, but the fact of passionate love may indeed be a cultural universal based on similarities in the architecture of the mind and a common neural substrate (Aron et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2008).

The Likelihood of Being in Love

Sprecher and her colleagues (1994) interviewed 1,667 men and women in the United States, Russia, and Japan. Based on notions of individualism versus collectivism, the authors predicted that whereas American men and women would be most vulnerable to love, the Japanese would be the least likely to be “love besotted.” The authors found that they were wrong. In fact, 59% of American college students, 67% of Russians, and 53% of Japanese students said they were in love at the time of the interview. In all three cultures, men were slightly less likely than women to be in love. (In America, 53% of men and 63% of women; in Russia, 61% of men and 71% of women; and in Japan, 41% of men and 63% of women indicated they were currently in love.) There was no evidence, however, that individualistic cultures breed young men and women who are more love struck than do collectivist societies.

Surveys of Mexican-American, Chinese-American, and European-American students have revealed that in a variety of ethnic groups, young men and women show similarly high rates of “being in love” at the present time (Aron & Rodriguez, 1992; Doherty et al., 1994; Hatfield & Rapson, 2005).

The Intensity of Passionate Love

Cultures also seem to share more similarities than differences in the intensity of passionate love that people experience. In one study, Hatfield and Rapson (2005) asked men and women of European, Filipino, and Japanese ancestry to complete the PLS. To their surprise, they found that men and women from the various ethnic groups seemed to love with equal passion. (In the following table 1, none of the ethnic group differences nor any of the gender x ethnic group differences were significant.)

Table 1. PLS Scores of Various Ethnic Groups

Hatfield and Rapson’s (2005) results were confirmed in a study done by Doherty and his colleagues (1994) with European-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Filipino-Americans, Japanese- Americans, and Pacific Islanders.

After viewing the preceding results, some cultural researchers observed: “True, people might fall in love, but they don’t expect to have these desires indulged. When it comes to marriage, in family focused societies people sacrifice their own desires, and accede to the wishes of parents, authorities, and friends.”

To test this notion, Sprecher and her colleagues (1994), asked American, Russian, and Japanese students: “If a person had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry him or her if you were not in love?” (Students could answer only “yes” or “no.”) The authors assumed that only Americans would demand love and marriage; they predicted that both the Russians and the Japanese would be more practical. They were wrong! Both the Americans and the Japanese were romantics. Few of them would consider marrying someone they did not love (only 11% of Americans and 18% of the Japanese said “yes”). The Russians were more practical; 37% said they would accept such a proposal. (These ethnic group differences were significant at the p < .001 level.) Russian men were only slightly more practical than men in other countries. It was the Russian women who were most likely to “settle.” (This gender difference was significant at p < .05).

Despite the larger proportion of Russian women willing to enter a loveless marriage, a large majority of individuals in the three cultures would refuse to marry someone they did not love (see Table 2).

Table 2. Would You Marry Someone You Did Not Love?

For additional information on culture, love and sex, see Boratav (2008); Gabreyna (2008); Gabrenya & Fehir, 2008; Levine et al., 1995; Ryder, Pfaus & Brotto (2008); Schmitz (2008)— several of whose work are represented in this volume.

In Conclusion

The preceding studies, then, suggest that (in the area of passionate love and sexual desire) the large differences that once existed between Westernized, modern, urban, industrial societies and Eastern, modern, urban industrial societies may be fast disappearing. Those interested in cross-cultural differences may be forced to search for large differences in only the most underdeveloped, developing, and collectivist of societies—such as in Africa or Latin America, in China or the Arab countries (Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi-Arabia, Iraq, or the United Arab Emirates).

However, it may well be that even there, the winds of Westernization, individualism, and social change are blowing. In spite of the censure of their elders, in a variety of traditional cultures, young people are increasingly adopting “Western” patterns—placing a high value on falling in love, pressing for gender equality in love and sex, and insisting on marrying for love (as opposed to arranged marriages). Such changes have been documented in Finland, Estonia, and Russia (Haavio-Mannila, & Kontula, 2003) as well as among Australian aboriginal people of Mangrove and a Copper Inuit Alaskan Indian tribe (see Jankowiak, 1995, for an extensive review of this research).

Naturally, cultural differences still exert a profound influence on young people’s attitudes, emotions, and behavior, and such differences are not likely to disappear in our lifetime. In Morocco, for example, marriage was once an alliance between families (as historically it was in most of the world before the 18th century), in which children had little or no say. Today, although parents can no longer simply dictate whom their children will marry, parental approval remains critically important. It is important, however, that young men and women are at least allowed to have their say (see Davis & Davis, 1995).

Many have observed that, today, two powerful forces—globalization and cultural pride/identification with one’s country (what historians call “nationalism”)—are contending for men’s and women’s souls. To some extent, the world’s citizens may be becoming one but in truth the delightful and divisive cultural variations that have made our world such an interesting (and simultaneously dangerous) place, are likely to add spice to that heady brew of love and sexual practices for some time to come. The convergence of cultures around the world may be reducing the differences in the ways passionate love is experienced and expressed in the modern era, but tradition can be tenacious, and the global future of passionate love cannot be predicted with any certainty.

References

Aron, A., Fisher, H. E., Strong, G., Acevedo, B., Riela, S., & Tsapelas, I. (2008). Falling in love. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel & J. Harvey (Eds.) Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 315-336). New York: Guilford.

Aron, A., & Rodriguez, G. (1992, July). Scenarios of falling in love among Mexican-, Chinese-, and Anglo-Americans. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Personal Relationships, Orono, ME.

Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport, 11, 3829-3834.

Boratav, H. B. (2008, July). Sexual socialization among college students in Turkey: Messages, beliefs and practices in context. Paper presented at the XIXth International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bremen, Germany.

Chu, G. C. (1985). The changing concept of self in contemporary China. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos & F. L. K. Hus (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 252-277.) London, England: Tavistock.

Chu, G. C., & Ju, Y. (1993). The great wall in ruins. Albany: State University of New York Press. Cohen, D. (2001). Cultural variation: Considerations and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 451-471.

Contreras, R., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1996). Perspectives on marital love and satisfaction on Mexican American and Anglo couples. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 408-415.

Davis, D. A., & Davis, S. S. (1995). Possessed by love: gender and romance in Morocco. In W. Jankowiak (Ed.), Romantic passion: A universal experience? (pp. 219-238). New York: Columbia University Press.

DeMunck, V. C., & Korotayev, A. (1999). Sexual equality and romantic love: A reanalysis of Rosenblatt’s study on the function of romantic love. Cross-cultural Research, 33, 265-277.

Doherty, R. W., Hatfield, E., Thompson, K., & Choo, P. (1994). Cultural and ethnic influences on love and attachment. Personal Relationships, 1, 391-398.

Doi, L. T. (1963). Some thoughts on helplessness and the desire to be loved. Psychiatry, 26, 266-272.

Doi, L. T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence (J. Bester, Trans.). Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Ferrer Pérez, V. A., Fiol, E. B., Guzmán, C. N., Palmer, C. R., & Baudes, E. G. (2008). El concepto deamor en España. [The concept of love in Spain]. Psycothema, 20, 589-594.

Fischer, K. W., Wang, L., Kennedy, B., & Cheng, C.-L. (1998). Culture and biology in emotional development. In D. Sharma & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), New directions for child development: Vol. 81. Socio-emotional development across cultures (pp. 21-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fisher, H. E. (2004). Why we love: The nature and chemistry of romantic love. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Gabrenya, W. (2008, July). Sex and culture: Comparative and indigenous studies. Paper presented at the XIXth International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bremen, Germany.

Gabrena, W., & Fehir, S. (2008, July). Culture and the participation in new forms of sexual activity: A cross-cultural study of sybersex. Paper presented at the XIXth International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bremen, Germany.

Goode, W. J. (1959). The theoretical importance of love. American Sociological Review, 24, 38-47.

Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kontula, O. (2003). Single and double sexual standards in Finland, Estonia, and St. Petersburg. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 36-49.

Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2005). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. Lantham, MD: University Press of America.

Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Martel, L. D. (2007). Passionate love and sexual desire. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 760-779). New York: Guilford Press.

Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relations. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383-410.

Hsu, F. L. K. (1953). Americans and Chinese: Passage to difference (3rd ed.). Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 24-55). London, England: Tavistock.

Jankowiak, W. (Ed.) (1995). Romantic passion: A universal experience? New York: Columbia University Press.

Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethology, 31, 149-155.

Kim, J., & Hatfield, E. (2004). Love types and subjective well being. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 32, 173-182.

Landis, D., & O’Shea, W. A. O. III, (2000). Cross-cultural aspects of passionate love: An individual difference analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 754-779.

Levine, R., Sato, S., Hashimoto, T., & Verma, J. (1995). Love and marriage in eleven cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 554-571.

Linton, R. (1936). The study of man. New York: Appleton-Century.

Luciano, E. M. C. (2003). Caribbean love and sex: ethnographic study of rejection and betrayal in heterosexual relationships in Puerto Rico. Paper presented at the 29th annual meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research meetings, Bloomington, IN.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Medora, N. P., Larson, J. H., Hortacsu, N., & Dave, P. (2002). Perceived attitudes towards romanticism: A cross-cultural study of American, Asian-Indian, and Turkish young adults. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33, 155-178.

Neto, F., Mullet, E., Deschamps, J., Barros, J., Benvindo, R., Camino, L., Falconi, A., Kagibanga, V., & Machado, M. (2000). Cross-cultural variations in attitudes toward love. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 626-635.

Rosenblatt, P. C. (1967). Marital residence and the function of romantic love. Ethnology, 6, 471-480.

Ryder, A. G., Pfaus, J. G., & Brotto, L. (2008, July). The mutual influence of culture and evolution on mating strategies: Preliminary results from national-level and individual-level studies. Paper presented at the XIXth International Congress of the International Association for Cross-cultural psychology, Bremen, Germany.

Schmitz, P. G. (2008, July). Dimensions of love and sexual behavior: The influence of culture and personality factors. Paper presented at the XIXth International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bremen, Germany.

Shaver, P. R., Murdaya, U., & Fraley, R. C. (2001). Structure of the Indonesian emotion lexicon. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 201-224.

Shaver, P. R., Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1991). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation: A prototype approach. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol.13) (pp. 175-212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Simmons, C. H., Vom Kolke, A., & Shimizu, H. (1986). Attitudes toward romantic love among American, German, and Japanese students. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 327-337.

Simmons, C. H., Wehner, E. A., & Kay, K. A. (1988). Differences in attitudes toward romantic love of French and American students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 793-799.

Sprecher, S., Aron, A., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Love: American style, Russian style, and Japanese style. Personal Relationships, 1, 349-369.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The evolutionary and psychological foundations of the social sciences. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19-136). New York: Oxford University Press.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.

Weaver, S. E., & Ganong, L. W. (2004). The factor structure of the Romantic Belief Scale for African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 171-185.

Xu, X., Aron, A., Cao, G., Feng, T., Fisher, H., Brown, L., & Weng, X. (2008). The universality of love and neural correlates of relational outcomes: an fMRI study of intense romantic love in China with follow-up relational data. Talk presented at the biannual meeting of the International Association of Relationship Research, Providence, RI.

#culture #love #emotion #comparison #cross-cultural studies #universalism #passion #interpersonal relationships #marriage #romantic love #cultural differences

2 notes · View notes

lookingfornoonat2pm · 5 years

Text

On the Zizek-Peterson Debate

The simplest way to explain the Zizek-Peterson debate that I can think of is that their ideas are not mutually unthinkable on any level, yet it is clear that the two men would never come to pose as the other. In some ways, this is characteristic of our moment of aesthetic radical centrism. What is agreed upon is the sanctity of continuing with the basic traditions of modernity, in spite of the looming specters of climatic apocalypse, nuclear war, holocaust, and political re-feudalization. Zizek, the pessimist, assents to continuation of what he undoubtedly considers our folly, that is, modern life, as we have not yet been stimulated by enough horror to change. Peterson, the man who tries to connect his suburban fatherhood to De-Lillo-esque mythical, cosmic forces, believes the primary task of modern life is to live it. Neither of these men communicated a moral mandate that transforms our humanity, or our understanding of the relationship between politics and the biosphere. What distinguishes one from the other is primarily style: lifestyle. Certainly not intellectual or literary style--Zizek dwarfs Peterson as a speaker, a philosopher, a theorist. But if you walked away from that debate thinking that that was what "winning" means, and are therefore overly enthusiastic for Zizek, you haven't learned the same lesson the Democratic Party still hasn't learned since 2016: being smart isn't especially politically important.

Rather, their clothing probably marked the greatest difference in their lifestyles. Zizek prides himself on his time spent contemplating shit, and made sure to include it in his rhetoric. For this delivery he chose a zip-neck long-sleeve blah of a sweater with slacks and loafers, over his usual tee-shirt and jeans. Peterson appeared in a three-piece suit, bars above his usual average white male professor look. While it is easy to dismiss style as utterly irrelevant to the philosophical content pertinent to the reason for the debate itself, it reflects what kind of event each man believed he was headlining. Certainly both dressed "up" from their typical attire. Peterson appeared to be a salesman, an honored deliverer of a message. One could just as easily imagine him at church or at a tech conference about the future of clinical practice and its relationship to automation. Zizek, on the other hand, made sure at a certain point, to address the audience and attempt to discipline their applause away from sporting. "Please don't do this! Because I really think that, and please, Jordan, I hope that you agree, that why we are here engaged in this debate. Don't take it as a cheap competition. It may be that--[laughter]--but we are, as you said in your introduction, desperately trying to confront serious problems." Peterson showed his real commitment to the protestant work ethic by (apparently) trying to type up a response on stage while his opponnent spoke. The way that Zizek prepares himself personally to confront those problems is to dwell upon morose topics.

Dwelling is not an idle word here, as he, as much as Peterson, has many public photos of himself in his bedroom, in his sweatpants. Bedrooms indeed compose a crucial artifact of theorization for both of them. They simultaneously represent two dramatically different faces of the resurgent interest in psychoanalysis, and the entire philosophy of sex, sexuality, perversion, and inversion that hangs on to psychoanalysis as techniques of explication. Furthermore, one of the most memorable moments from the debate came on the subject of tidying one's space. Peterson reiterated his famous point that one should have one's things in order before attempting to criticize others, or remake society. Zizek responded that we very often find that the reason our homes are not in order is that our society is not in order.

As a social worker, this is fundamental to the way I think about psychological and social problems. When working with someone to reflect on the improvement of their life, everywhere you encounter the pernicious effects of an oppressive society. Yet as a soon-to-be clinician, it is absolutely imperative that I care for myself and my own well-being in order to do any of that reflection effectively, and in a way that can create a meaningful relationship between myself and my client. When this tension emerged in the debate last night, both agreed to some vague delineation along the lines of "One improves one's society as one improves oneself." I find this unsatisfying: it does not resolve the primary philosophical difference between the two, which is between Zizek's illiberal democracy and Peterson's "family-friendly" authoritarianism. Agreement certainly feels nice, though.

Make no mistake, the aesthetic dimension is here entirely constitutive of the debate between the two men. Even if Zizek is right, and it is indeed a convening of illiberal minds to create a future beyond the failures of neo-liberal hyperindividualism and neo-conservative chauvinism, then the expressive mode of that convention is rather like a World's Fair: a just-for-fun festival in which attention and investment are given by the audience in exchange for a comforting image of the future. Like in a world's fair, the competition here is in our economy of attention. If one wanted, one could dig deep into the citations--Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Foucault, a slew of clinical literature on the topic of resilience. But the only reason to do this is, again, to try to win politics through correctness, rather than through the processes of empathetic communication, negotiation, and solidarity. Peterson's fumbling through a shallow reading of he Communist Manifesto, and a fairly uninteresting history of the USSR and its catastrophes reflects one important thing he understood about the debate: the point was to demonstrate a sincere emotive connection to collective humanity. We are in a time of desperation and loneliness. Aesthesis matters because attachment matters--no one is going to think through the problems we are facing unless they have somewhere safe and warm to dwell, and people with whom to do it.

I do not mean to say that Zizek did not communicate such a sentiment, because again, these two men share much more than one would hope for in such a famed debate. Instead, I mean to caution anyone reading this from taking it as any kind of epic, mythical, world historical, or any other sort of watershed moment. This was two men who are psychoanalysts discussing a series of psychoanalytic questions related to a certain image of how human power systems work. Zizek reflects no small number of men I know whose approach to politics is a kind of internalization of horror, and a reflexive forbidding of having too much fun while the world burns. Peterson meanwhile appeared in a costume that reflected the huckstering that surrounds the entire occasion. Indeed he began his introductory speech by remarking that tickets to the auditorium were being scalped for enormous costs. I attend here to their clothing, and to the aesthetic dimensions of the debate mainly as a way to say that philosophy, especially political philosophy, is not something that can be won. As the libertarians say, this is simply voting with your feet, buying this recycled product or this other organic one because of something you saw at the World's Fair, or on Amazon. It's all well and good for you to do that. The real efficacy of this kind of public performance is to help agglomerate groups that can safely discuss futures, produce ideas, and so on. Zizek was the only of the two to mention the real political problem of our moment--that is to say, the problem of and by the composition of the political realm itself, the existence of rights or personhood instead of barbarism, and the crass rule of sovereign brutality--the displacement of whole regions of humanity into social precarity through borders, camps, and walls. For them, there is no room from which to philosophize.

#lookingfornoonat2pm #slavoj žižek

48 notes · View notes

galaxylohnce · 6 years

Text

VUD paladin headcanons!!!!

BTW this is based off of @voltronuniversaldefender ‘s reboot!!! CHECK THEM OUT THEYRE DOING GOD’S WORK

also i have read approx 2 headcanons and baRELY understand this AU so if there are similarities to anyone else or inconsistencies iT IS AN ACCIDENT AND IM SORRY

anyway this is just about the 4 confirmed paladins BET ill be doing more about Fa’rah/Takashi/Zahi/Ashanti once i know a bit more about their roles in the team!!

Alvaro Garcia Valladares

he has a twin. i don't make the rules, but he has a twin.

he has a big family. the biggest family. we’re talking, his mom has 8 siblings and his dad has 9 and there’s a 10 year age gap between him and his oldest sibling and he loves them all so much

natia is his best friend. i repeat, NATIA IS HIS BEST FRIEND!!!!

he’s also quite close with kiki. Natia and Kiki are the only two that he met before their great space adventure

he wasn't really sure of his sexuality at first. (i say this because i wasn't sure of my sexuality at first - im bi btw - and all the media i saw told me that any lgbt+ character was 100% sure of their sexuality form the day they were born, which made me doubt myself bc i didn't figure it out till recently, so i wanna see that in some media!! sometime!!) he probably figured it out halfway through having a crush on someone

the someone is akio, and he definitely tells Natia about it first

“natia... natia listen.... I have a crush on akio. freakin akio.... what do i do??? I’m bi, natia... I'm bi. what does this mean -”

“alvaro, I'm so proud of you, but this is a public bathroom and akio is right outside -”

GUARANTEE that the first time he saw Akio he just basically wanted to fight him but also flirt with him and had a slight moral crisis and ended up doing nothing

he is a goddamn sharpshooter, okay. he straight up becomes famous for it throughout the galaxy.

yet despite that he’s still insecure, and those insecurities prevent him from really getting together w akio until much later

he comes off as very suave and extroverted when you first meet him, but underneath it all, he’s actually really warm, personable and funny: not that anyone outside the team know that

aliens on social media, probably: god, the blue paladin is so cool... i bet he’s amazing and awesome and eloquent...

meanwhile, alvaro: do u guys think i could fit my whole hand in my mouth or nah?

enjoys memes, and shares this love with kiki

basically an all around great guy. because he often felt like a seventh wheel at the beginning of the formation of the team, he always tries to include everybody as best as possible, going way out of his way to ask after people, even if they forget to ask about him sometimes :’)

Natia Nanai

first off: what a gorgeous name. seriously. incredible kudos, my dude. anyway on to the head canons for this gorgeous girl

probably alvaro’s soulmate. already mentioned this, but it needs reiteration. they are best friends

had a large family too (not as big as alvaros tho) and probably major relate to him with that big family dealio

v close with kiki. they complete each other on a technological level.

natia is very, very creative. she and her sweet engineering know how are always instrumental in getting the Team out of tough situations

Akio: theres no way out of this we’re going to die -

Natia: bet?

she does say “bet” a lot. like, almost too much? but she's always right and valid when she says it

the villain: i’ve got you now!!!!

natia, under her breath: bet

the paladins, thinking: thank god, we’re saved

very soft but also badass as hell. she has a unique duality.

pulls a violet baudelaire: she puts that GORGEOUS hair up in a ponytail when doing work or whenever she has an idea

everyone on the team, regardless of sexuality, is low-key in love with her because she’s just so nice. no one can hate her. she's way too solid of a friend

speakinG of being a great friend: natia is 100% the secret keeper up in this bitch. everyone comes to her because they know she’s got the best advice around and will take their secrets to the grave

akio: idk man... alvaro is just rlly cute, u know?? but i can't tell him...

natia, thinking of alvaro literally whining to her about akio not even five minutes ago: christ

the mom friend. she always has all the things everyone needs on hand or in her lion, and she’s got it all going in terms of chore charts and family meals. she is the queen of figuring out times for team bonding and everyone loves her more for it

definitely started a board game night asap

she has a silent bravery about her that no one else can match. despite her trepidation, natia will always do what has to be done for the greater good.

she is guided by her heart and her morals, and is easily the kindest person on the team

bc of this kindness, she is often the diplomat when conflicts arise between people on the team

she is seen by the general public (aka the galaxy) as a strong, morally righteous woman. kind of like rosie the riveter-esque??? she’s the symbol of justice and fairness.

aliens: she's so... peacekeeping :0

natia, at kiki: throw me that wrench, or so help me god -

basically, a queen who always considers everyone and works really hard to create a family, even when they're all so far from home :’)

Kiki Evans

generally over it tbh

“always tired, but always inspired” - kiki, on being asked why there were dark circles under her eyes

kind of standoffish. she’s not really about being nice, she's about getting the job done, and that can rub people the wrong way, since she is always the first to offer up the cold, logical solution

but underneath that, she’s just a computer science nerd who is loyal to a fault

she really is loyal. its almost dangerous sometimes, because she would put the universe in danger to save her friends, which actually comes into conflict with her typical cold, logical approach.

she has 0-1 sibling. she's every bit the single child. she cannot relate to living in a big family setting, and at first its hard for her to deal with before she warms up to everyone else on the team

she's a genius, and thus found school to be tedious. in fact, she got fairly bad grades, as she wouldn't do the work that she saw as pointless and boring

she is a meme connoisseur, and loves to quote vines, often assisted by alvaro

kiki, as they approach a giant black hole: HZZK

alvaro, catching on immediately: is... is that real???

she is a conspiracy theorist, for sure. the government is watching us all, trying to make sure we don't learn too much.... she’s sure of it, and akio is too

tbh, the first proper conversation she had with akio was about cryptids and how the government had hidden them from the public

she was friends w natia and alvaro from before, but it is akio she becomes closest with the fastest. in some ways, she feels more distant from natia/alvaro bc of how close they are with each other and bc all of them have known each other for so long while akio is someone she got to know recently: he has no preconceptions about who she used to be, and she has none about him

plus, she and akio relate on many levels: both trans, both gay, both autistic, both theorists, and both loyal to a fault. she finds a real blood brother in akio :D

very openly gay. very. she's a space lesbian, and theres no denying it

kiki, meeting some random space girl: oh

kiki, moments later to akio: god I'm gay

akio, downing a glass of water but acting like its vodka or smthg: god, same

the public sees her as the cold and calculating techie, the brains of the operation

natia is her partner in crime. they finish each others sentences. they've got a tech connection going, babey

kiki: if we just cross-reference the zaiforge tunnel with the -

natia, nodding: particle consummator, of course we’ll get the perfect -

them, together: amount of energy!!!

everyone else: sorry wot

basically, she's a tech goddess with a splash of genius. she's uneasy and a bit awkward, but thats just bc she’s never been in a situation like this before. after literally 1 second with her, she opens up and is such a loyal friend. :’)

Akio Himura

wow this boy is gay and he knows it

he loves his parents (zahi, takashi, and ashanti) but god he will never admit it. not ever

alvaro, after listing his parents, 20 aunts and 100 cousins: and i love them all so much, with all my heart. what about ur family akio?

akio, not wanting to show weakness: they're nerds.

alvaro: um okay cool good talk haha :)

akio, internally: but i love them nd would die for them tbh... but i can't show weakness

he's so guarded after his biological parents left/died/disappeared. poor boy

definitely a single child, and definitely adopted

his parents love him SO MUCH. so much.

akio: why do i have three parents, dad?

takashi, almost crying: its simple. u deserve so much love, that it couldn't be contained in just two people. we needed three. its how its gotta be, my beautiful, sweet summer child

a yeehaw kind of guy. he grew up in the midwest riding horses before his biological parents died and theres a piece of him that will always be a southern boy

the kind of kid in school that pretends he’s a delinquent, but actually just has the aesthetic of a delinquent, and is truly soft

akio: hell yeah I'm a rebel. i logged onto disney.com without my parents permission

kiki, choked up: so brave

mothman is his love. his passion. all cryptids, for that matter. kiki is more of an all around conspiracy theorist: akio is in it for the cryptids

he’s a bit awkward, and doesn’t totally understand all social cues/jokes. because of this, he stays away from memes, and is very guarded when meeting new people, especially after experiences with light bullying for not only his social ineptitude, but his upbringing.

considering that, his first meeting with alvaro was supremely awkward, and akio accidentally fought with him multiple times before they established a solid friendship

akio, having a gay panic: you are the light of my life

alvaro: sorry what??

akio, panicking more: I said, you wanna fiGHT WITH A KNIFE???

he pined after alvaro from basically day one, but had the foresight to actually know that he was pining, unlike alvaro who just floundered

of course he would never say anything

he is a stabby boi. he is unrivaled in swordplay, and enjoys routine. his natural affinity for picking up new skills plus his unrivaled work ethic basically DESTROYED everyone else when it came to swords

he’s loyal af and is always the first one to take action. akio is a “do something. do anything, but do it fast before we lose a chance to do something” kind of guy

the general public sees him as the fiery one: he’s the one with the fanciest footwork in a fight, and he’s very good with battle tactics. he can come thru with that strategy at the perfect times

he's a low-key emo. for sure. he loves MCR, but strangely dislikes other similar artists like p!atd and fob.

kiki: but...brendon urie, akio....

akio, sipping tea: as a gay, i can appreciate the aesthetic. but no one can compete with MCR

kiki, exasperated: its not a competition -

basically, a slightly guarded boy with a real talent for defending the universe and his friends, but also an emo cowboy mess who is in love with alvaro and loves everyone :’)

WELL THAT ENDED UP LONGER THAN I EXPECTED. I HOPE U ENJOY AAAA

ALSO FOLLOW @voltronuniversaldefender !!!! its amazing, guys, really check it out :D

#vud #voltron universal defender #i love them asadjkdflkKL #vud headcanons #I HOPE YALL LIKE THIS #alvaro valladeres #natia nanai #kiki evans #akio himura

222 notes · View notes

bayrockoanr546-blog · 3 years

Text

Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained

(Photo : Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained)

Tevfik Arif's business connections to Donald Trump have become the source of speculation among conspiracy theorists and the media, but are there any truths to these stories?

Tevfik Arif is the owner of Bayrock Group, one of the primary developers of Trump SoHo Tower.

Tevfik Arif is an international entrepreneur, investor and property developer. In the United States, Arif is best known as one of the primary developers of the Trump SoHo Tower in New York City.

Arif's partnership with Donald Trump coupled with his past position working within the Soviet Union Ministry of Commerce and Trade at the beginning of his professional career has made the real estate developer the subject of numerous conspiracy theories in an attempt to establish a distant connection between the President of the United States and Russia. The fact that Arif has preferred to live a Bayrock private life out of the spotlight has only added mystery and allure to these claims. But who exactly is Tevfik Arif and what is his history with Donald Trump?

Exposing the conspiracy surrounding Tevfik Arif

After much public scrutiny, there is no evidence to show Arif or his company, Bayrock Group, facilitated communications or negotiations between Donald Trump and Russian officials. Any attempt to connect Arif or his company to nefarious or illegal activity involving Donald Trump and Russian officials have proven slanderous and libelous to Arif and Bayrock Group.

Tevfik Arif's connections to Donald Trump have proven to be nothing more than a legitimate business partnership. While in the early stages of their partnership in the early 2000s, Bayrock and the Trump Organization did discuss plans to create an international chain of Trump-branded hotel complexes in Turkey, Moscow, Ukraine, and various other countries, these ambitions were never more than discussions that did not get past the planning phase.

The working relationship that developed between Arif and Donald Trump ended before the latter announced his candidacy for President of the United States in 2015. This fact is often omitted when attempts are Get more info made to use Tevfik Arif to connect Trump to Russia. The timelines of the development of Trump SoHo Tower and Donald Trump's campaign for president do not line up.

Who is Tevfik Arif?

Tevfik Arif was born and grew up in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic. He also has Turkish citizenship through his parents. Arif studied international relations at the Moscow Trade and Economic Institute. After receiving his degree, the young Arif began working in the Soviet Union's Ministry of Commerce and Trade. During his time as a civil servant, Arif rose from a chief economist to the deputy head of the Ministry's Hotel Management Department.

After the fall of the Soviet real estate Union, Arif left public service in pursuit of business opportunities that were prevalent Bayrock - Tevfik Arif during the privatization of industries that followed the dissolution of the communist government regime in the 1990s. Arif and his brother acquired businesses in the mineral and natural resources industry in Kazakhstan, including a chromium plant and other holdings. Arif also worked as a consultant and field manager for other international businesses in the same industry. He owned or managed several additional projects including an import and export firm and jewelry business.

Soon, Arif began investing in property development and real estate. His first projects were concentrated in Kazakhstan, Turkey and other Central Asian and European countries. He developed a passion for hotel and luxury development. One of his early projects included a luxury hotel chain in Turkey.

Arif establishes Bayrock Group

Success set the stage for Arif's next challenge, the American real estate market. In 2001, Arif established Bayrock Group, a real estate development and investment firm, in New York City. Bayrock's first projects were modest and included the redevelopment of a shopping plaza in the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood of Brooklyn.

As Bayrock's success continued to grow, Arif moved the firm's offices to the heart of the competitive Manhattan real estate market into Donald Trump And Tevfik Arif a space in Trump Tower. It was not long before the company began negotiations to work on projects with the building's famous owners, The Trump Organization.

Arif, viewed by the New York establishment as a foreigner at the helm of a little-known company, had ambitions to develop luxury real estate projects throughout the city. By teaming up with the Trump Organization, Bayrock could achieve the level of luxury recognition that came with the Trump brand.

The development of the Trump SoHo hotel and condominium complex was soon underway. The project would be developed and built by Bayrock in partnership with the Sapir Organization. The building would lease the Trump name from The Trump Organization through a licensing and management agreement that awarded the future president's company 18% equity in the project. The Trump Organization did not invest any of its own capital in the development of Trump SoHo Tower.

Trump SoHo was completed in 2008 and opened in 2011. The 46-story building was intended to be the first of a series of similar projects between Bayrock Group and The Trump Organization in places such as Florida and Arizona. However, the economic downturn that hit the United States real estate market in 2008 prevented the completion of these planned projects.

Instead, the economic situation forced Tevfik Arif to refocus his business interests back to Central Asia and Europe, effectively ending the working relationship between Bayrock Group and The Trump Organization. Bayrock Group has been dormant in the United States since around 2011.

Article Source:

https://www.hngn.com/articles/229505/20200519/tevfik-arif-donald-trump-and-the-russia-conspiracy-explained.htm

0 notes

tevfikarifqauq057 · 3 years

Text

Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained

(Photo : Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained)

Tevfik Arif's business connections to Donald Trump have become the source of speculation among conspiracy theorists and the media, but are there any truths to these stories?

Tevfik Arif is the owner of Bayrock Group, one of the primary developers of Trump SoHo Tower.

Tevfik Arif is an international entrepreneur, investor and property developer. In the United States, Arif is best known as one of the primary developers of the Trump SoHo Tower in New York City.

Arif's partnership with Donald Trump coupled with his past position working within the Soviet Union Ministry of Commerce and Trade at the beginning of his professional career has made the real estate developer the subject of numerous conspiracy theories in an attempt to establish a distant connection between the President of the United States and Russia. The fact that Arif has preferred to live a private life out of the spotlight has only added mystery and allure to these claims. But who exactly is Tevfik Arif and what is his history with Donald Trump?

Exposing the conspiracy surrounding Tevfik Arif

The working relationship that developed between Arif and Donald Trump ended before the latter announced his candidacy for President of the United States in 2015. This fact is often omitted when attempts are made to use Tevfik Arif to connect Trump to Russia. The timelines of the development of Trump SoHo Tower and Donald Trump's campaign for president do not line up.

Who is Tevfik Arif?

Tevfik Arif was born and grew up in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic. He also has Turkish citizenship through his parents. Arif studied international relations at the Moscow https://realtybiznews.com/what-happened-to-tevfik-arif-and-bayrock-groups-trump-soho/98760463/ Trade and Economic Institute. After receiving his degree, the young Arif began working in the Soviet Union's Ministry of Commerce and Trade. During his time as a civil servant, Arif rose from a chief economist to the deputy head of the Ministry's Hotel Management Department.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Arif left public service in pursuit of business opportunities that were prevalent during the privatization of industries that followed the dissolution of the communist government regime in the 1990s. Arif and his brother acquired businesses in the mineral and natural resources industry in Kazakhstan, including a chromium plant and other holdings. Arif also worked as a consultant and field manager for other international businesses in the same industry. He owned or managed several additional projects including an import and export firm and jewelry business.

Soon, Arif began investing in property development and real estate. His first projects were concentrated in Kazakhstan, Turkey and other Central Homepage Asian and European countries. He https://www.hngn.com/articles/229505/20200519/tevfik-arif-donald-trump-and-the-russia-conspiracy-explained.htm developed a passion for hotel and luxury development. One of sport his early projects included a luxury hotel chain in Turkey.

Arif establishes Bayrock Group

As Bayrock's success continued to grow, Arif moved the firm's offices to the heart of the competitive Manhattan real estate market into a space in Trump Tower. It was not long before the company began negotiations to work on projects with the building's famous owners, The Trump Organization.

The development of the Trump SoHo hotel and condominium complex was soon underway. The project would be developed and built by Bayrock in partnership with the Sapir Organization. The building would lease the Trump name from The Trump Organization through a licensing Tevfik Arif Bayrock and management agreement that awarded the future president's company 18% equity in the project. The Trump Organization did not invest any of its own capital in the development of Trump SoHo Tower.

Article Source:

https://www.hngn.com/articles/229505/20200519/tevfik-arif-donald-trump-and-the-russia-conspiracy-explained.htm

0 notes

backstorywithdanalewis · 4 years

Text

Trumps Snake Pit. The White House Back Story with Dana Lewis podcast link: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1016881/6527620

Dana Lewis/ Host : (00:00) It seems to me, there's something wrong with the president who carves people up, who have, who have dedicated their time and months trying to help him. Uh, and, and he rips them to shreds as they go out the door. Amb. John Bolton: (00:11) That's why the white house was such a snake pit under Trump. But I think it's what it reflects is that, uh, he doesn't have a philosophy. He doesn't think in strategic terms, he doesn't even think in what we conventionally call policy. Everything is about Donald Trump. Dana Lewis/ Host : (00:32) Hi everyone. And welcome to backstory. I'm Dana Lewis in London ever wonder what really happens in the white house in the oval office were decisions which shaped the world are taken by a select few. Some of them brilliant. A lot of them not. You could argue the most critical input comes through the national security advisor. He plays a critical role in the administration of the national security council, the NSC, which advises and assist the president on national security and foreign policy issues. President Trump knows something about business commercial real estate and serving his self interests. He's famous for that, but on the world stage, he needed John Bolton to tell him what was at stake with Iran, China, Russia, Afghanistan, to name a few. Trump probably didn't learn much. He never seemed to have a clear philosophical belief in the world and America's role in it. Unlike many presidents before him, but his former national security advisor sure did. And does. And he's written a book called the room where it happened, a white house memoir this week. John Bolton on backstory talks to me about Trump and his character democracy and foreign policy challenges waiting for incoming president elect Joe Biden. Dana Lewis/ Host : (02:05) All right. Joining me now from Washington ambassador, John Bolton. He's the former national security advisor for president Trump. Hi John. Hi, glad to be with you. Thanks for having me. I was listening to president Trump discussing you at a town hall meeting and it was pretty insulting. Uh, you don't smile by the way. You're smiling now. Um, you, you know, you're sick. You want to bomb everybody. Why is, and I'm not going to ask you to respond to any of that, and I'm sorry to mention it, but can you give me some insight into why Trump is so nasty and smears? Anyone who has worked for him? It seems to me there's something wrong with a president who carves people up, who have, who have dedicated their time and months trying to help him. Uh, and, and he rips them to shreds as they go out the door. Yeah, well, I, I can say that what he does in public, he does in private too. I, I remember, and I recounted my book when, when I was with him alone in the oval office on some occasion, Amb. John Bolton: (03:00) Within a few weeks after joining the administration and he started criticizing defense secretary, Jim Mattis and other people to me, and, uh, I didn't really know how to respond. And, but it occurred to me shortly after I left the oval office that if he's criticizing them to me, he's going to be criticizing me to them too. And I think that it's a, it obviously doesn't make for a good working relationship. It's why the white house was such a snake pit under Trump. Uh, but I think it's what it reflects is that, uh, he doesn't have a philosophy. He doesn't think in strategic terms, he doesn't even think in what we conventionally call it policy. Everything is about Donald Trump and therefore everything in his relations with people is personal. So if you disagree with him on the middle East, uh, it's a disagreement with him personally. And I think that's what produces this kind of, uh, insult Dana Lewis/ Host : (03:55) Really wonders, makes you wonder about moral compass because in the book you talk about possible sanctions discussed on China and the detention of millions of Muslims and human rights, the clamp down on China. And you got nowhere with Trump, Amb. John Bolton: (04:10) Right? Well, I think he's completely amoral as well. I mean, while we're talking about the good points of Donald Trump, let's not, let's not forget that either. Um, and, uh, look, uh, international relations is tough business, uh, but at least, uh, if you're going to denigrate, uh, human rights to about China, you got to get something from the Chinese, Hillary Clinton on her first visit a secretary of state to China said, I'm not going to bother him about human rights. She said it publicly. It was a mistake. Uh, I don't even think she believed that necessarily, but that's what she was hearing from the state department, uh, with trumpets purely transactional, purely transactional Dana Lewis/ Host : (04:48) Trump's lawyers have lost or withdrawn over 30 legal cases. Um, one judge said, strain legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations. You have said, and I watched you on some of the political programs over the weekend. This is not a legal argument anymore, but can I ask you, what is it then? Amb. John Bolton: (05:06) Well, I think it's raw political power. Um, nothing that Trump has presented as a matter of law has succeeded. And, and, and I'm an old campaign finance lawyer. I spent 33 days in Florida, 2000 when Gore challenged Bush. So I've been around this track before he has no evidence of fraud. Uh, he hasn't presented any, uh, systematic, uh, uh, evidence to any court he's been before. Uh, just yesterday he fired the Sidney Powell, uh, who was the sort of most alarmist, most conspiracy theorist minded of his lawyers, but, but not the only one. Uh, so now what he's trying to do is intimidate state elections boards, uh, right now in Michigan, they're deciding what to do there, but on Friday he called the house and Senate Republican leaders of the Michigan general assembly to Washington, that this is like King Kong and, and rabbits getting together to have a discussion about politics. Amb. John Bolton: (06:03) He was clearly trying to muscle them. I'm sure these are good people. And they came away and issued a statement that I read is saying, we resisted what Trump wanted, but he's trying to bully his way to a conclusion that I'm not even sure he knows what it is. I can't really believe he thinks he can yet win, but I think, uh, he still hasn't reconciled himself to it. So he's going to do as much damage as he can. You don't think he's reconciled themselves to it? Well, I think the way it will end is the, you know, he will leave the white house, but he will not have lost because why that would make him a loser, which is the worst word in Trump's vocabulary. So the light, he won't have lost the election. It will have been stolen from him. He will say that until the day does Dana Lewis/ Host : (06:48) All right. Well that, I mean, that presents some real challenges then, because I know everybody in America right now is focused on the January inauguration, the January 20th inauguration, but it creates a lot of challenges beyond that. Doesn't it? I mean, if he is convinced so many Republican voters, uh, that, that the election was stolen from them, it looks like he's not going to go away. He's still talking about 20, 24 will Biden be able to actually function very well. If he's standing there sniping and blocking and, and constantly undermining the legitimacy of the commander in chief. I mean, I guess that happened to him. Uh, and we can talk about the grounds for that in another conversation when I have more time with you, but obviously it's going to be tough on Biden. Trump is not going to suddenly disappear. Amb. John Bolton: (07:32) No, I, I think the graver trouble though, is for the tens of millions of people who believe what Trump is telling him that the election was stolen when it manifests Lee was not. That's why I've been calling on Republican leaders to stand up and say, there was no steal. There was no fraud. And it's caused me to think about the importance of the candidates, concession speech. And in this case, why we always count on the outgoing president to accompany the new president to the inauguration on the 20th of January. Now, nobody likes to lose an election, not the candidate, not as supporters, but the concession speech is in effect the candidate saying, as much as this pains may I can live with it. Meaning supporters, you should live with it too. And that is especially in the case of a defeated incumbent and the Victoria's challenger appearing together. It says, this is the right thing to do for the country. If Trump's skips, Dana Lewis/ Host : (08:30) They're not doing that. They're not doing that. Amb. John Bolton: (08:33) That's exactly right. If he doesn't give a concession speech, if he doesn't go to the inauguration, that is the kind of damage I really fear, Dana Lewis/ Host : (08:40) But Republicans are not standing up. And I mean, they're slowly, you starting to see some of the dominoes fall here, but in general, why have they not stood up? Is it because they don't want to bite the electric, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the voters who supported president Trump in this election, because they need them in the future? Or is it because they fear the presidency? Amb. John Bolton: (09:04) Well, a lot of them fear a Twitter rant from the president. There's no doubt about it. And there's some argument that just let him go on letting rave and rant for a while. He'll calm down and accept it. I can tell you from my own personal experience, I don't think that's going to happen. So what I and others have been saying is for precisely those Trump supporters who listened to him and who believed the election has been stolen, they need to hear another narrative. They need to hear the truth from Republican leaders. And I'm not saying this to, to be virtuous. I'm saying it as a matter of cold, hard political reality for Republicans, this will hurt us in the future. If we don't confront reality now, Dana Lewis/ Host : (09:44) Well, I've spent a career, uh, you know, reporting in different places where elections are not free and they're not fair. Um, and if you're able to convince voters in a, in America, that the election was stolen from them, I can't imagine what that means for the future of democracy there. Look, I really appreciate being able to talk to you because there are a few people I know that know as much about the world as you do. And I want to ask you ambassador Bolton, first of all, about Iran, uh, you dramatically made the point that the Iran deal was completely unenforceable and verifiable. Um, you know, that Biden is going to re reassigned the NPT. It looks like the non-proliferation treaty, uh, will around being able to make a bomb. Amb. John Bolton: (10:28) Well, I think they've made a lot of progress toward it. And I think honestly, one of the worst parts of the 2015 nuclear deal was we really could not verify exactly what their program was, despite the contentions of the supporters of the deal. We don't know whether they're leasing uranium enrichment capabilities under a mountain in North Korea. For example, I think though that Biden and his team will find it a lot more difficult to get back into that deal than they anticipate because of Iran conduct. In part that was enabled by the 120, $150 billion of assets that were turned over to Iran and the economic progress they made after the sanctions were lifted. Uh, look, uh, the, the geography of the middle East has shifted the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have recognized Israel. Uh, the prime minister of Israel has just met with the crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. And they are brought together by their fear of Iran, not just the nuclear weapons, but the support for terrorism. So the middle East is a different place today, 15 days, 55 years after the nuclear deal. And Biden's gonna have to deal with that. Dana Lewis/ Host : (11:38) You mentioned that we were unable to verify whether Iran was abiding by the non-proliferation 3d. Let's talk about Russia. I mean, there is a start, uh, agreement that has been in place it's been highly successful verifiable. Um, and you, you, you under, uh, president Trump, one of the back out of it, and you wanted to walk away from start, what was the wisdom in that? And you know, that Biden would probably sign it the next day to try and extend it. Amb. John Bolton: (12:06) Well, he, he would make a mistake if he extended it for the full five years to maintain. I mean, I'm just speaking of his position now to maintain his negotiating leverage with the Russians. He only ought to extended for one year. Uh, I was against new start in 2010 for several reasons. The first was, it did not take into account tactical nuclear weapons of which there are thousands, right? Which is a much greater problem for Europe than it is than it is for us. Number one, uh, number two, uh, the treaty, even as written now, and the Russians concede this is, does not adequately cover new technology like hypersonic cruise missiles, which are in many respects, a graver threat than ballistic missiles. They're much harder to defend against given the kind of trajectory they followed and number three. And this really is a huge strategic question by definition, new start, doesn't cover China. Now the Chinese say, Oh, but our nuclear capabilities so much smaller than Russia and the United States, we shouldn't be included, which is a way of saying, let us build up to have as many nuclear weapons as you have. And then we'll be happy to talk to you that that's not acceptable. Now, you know, I'm not saying that, uh, Dana Lewis/ Host : (13:15) You got to start somewhere though, right? I mean, if you extend the 3d and then you bring the numbers down and we've, we've come down from tens of thousands of weapons down to about 1500 nuclear warheads per side, you bring them down a bit lower and then China is brought into that agreement. But to abandon start, I mean, a lot of people will argue against them, but, Amb. John Bolton: (13:34) Well, I wasn't saying we abandoned it. I just think this treaty is flawed. I negotiated the treaty of Moscow in 2002, which reduced the deployed nuclear warheads to, to a range of 17 to 2200 between Russia and the United States. So I've negotiated my share of arms control agreements, but they've got to be good arms control agreements. And as I've described, I think new start is flawed. Dana Lewis/ Host : (13:56) Putin played Trump, you, you saying in the book, what was the, or what, what was his, what was his spell over president Trump? Amb. John Bolton: (14:06) Well, I don't think it was a spell. I think it was his, his knowledge and his willpower and his a clear understanding of Russian national interest. I first met Putin in October of 2001. When I went with Rumsfeld after the attack at nine 11 to get some Russian help, to go into Afghanistan and Iraq, Dana Lewis/ Host : (14:25) Different days, ambassador Bolton when the relations were a lot better, but go ahead, sorry. Amb. John Bolton: (14:29) A lot different. Absolutely. And, uh, but I've watched him over the years. I've met with him myself several times. He's a tough, knowledgeable clear-minded adversary. And to put him on one side of the table and Donald Trump on the other filled me with fear each time I saw it, Dana Lewis/ Host : (14:45) Why didn't president Trump really come out and condemn Alexei, Navalny is poisoning. Do you think? Well, think he, wasn't sure Amb. John Bolton: (14:52) Of the Russians did it. I think, uh, you know, he has, Trump has this kind of moral equivalency when it comes to some of these authoritarian countries, uh, he wants said, uh, you think were so great when somebody complained about Russian, uh, uh, atrocities. Uh, and I, I just, uh, it's a, it's a blind spot that he had, uh, that colored his relations with, uh, authoritarians, like [inaudible] Tang, Kim. Jong-un not just Vladimir Putin. Dana Lewis/ Host : (15:19) Can I just talk to you quickly, but Afghanistan, I mean, you make the point in the, in the book that, uh, Trump wanted to do to deliver on that promise to end endless Wars in far away places, you know, that probably Americans don't understand. I think it's probably the one war they did understand after nine 11, Al-Qaeda working with Taliban or some have been Latin was there to simply withdrawn. Now, after so much blood has been invested there so much energy to stand up an Afghan government while the Taliban still have links to Al-Qaeda, I'm answering my own question. And I apologize, w w where it's not condition-based into pull the last remaining 5,500 troops out of Afghanistan. Do you support that? Amb. John Bolton: (15:59) Oh, absolutely not. Look, these numbers, uh, of troops that will be left 2,500 each in Iraq and Afghanistan have no military significance, whatever they're purely arbitrary figures. Uh, and it's just done for Trump to prove a point. Uh, I think a properly explained to the American people. They will appreciate that keeping a presence in a place like Afghanistan, to deal with terrorism, to watch the two nuclear powers on either side of Afghanistan, Iran on the West, Pakistan on the East makes perfectly good sense that we can have our troops deployed in a zone of danger far from America for a long time, because it makes America safer. If you explain that to people, I believe they will accept that the problem is not under Trump and frankly not under Obama. Uh, did, did they get that explanation that that's why we need new leaders who can explain why a strong American position in the world is necessary for our security? Dana Lewis/ Host : (16:58) Last question to you, is there a way back, I mean, watching all of this from Europe, I mean, I'm sure it's dizzying in America, but to even watch it from Europe and from afar that the American democracy would get to the point where it is now, the dealer de-legitimized station of the election by the president. Is this the new normal, or is there a way back somehow from all of this? Amb. John Bolton: (17:23) I definitely don't think it's the new normal. I think Trump is an aberration. He's an anomaly he's caused significant damage, uh, to the country, uh, internally and internationally. Uh, but I think it's fixable and I think it's actually fixable fairly quickly. I look, I, I voted against, uh, uh, Trump. I didn't vote for Biden either, but I voted against the Republican nominee for president for the first time in my life, because I, that eight years of Trump might make the damage irreparable, but I'm, I'm confident we can fix it. And I don't think anybody should draw a large conclusions from four years of Donald Trump. I think he's totally SU Sui generous ambassador, John Bolton. Great to talk to you, sir. Thanks so much for your insight. Thanks for having me Dana Lewis/ Host : (18:13) In that's. Our backstory on John Bolton's view in and out of the white house, Bolton will be forever criticized for not coming forward and testifying during the impeachment hearings against Trump. He thought the hearings were a partisan political exercise. Democrats argued the court fight to get Bolton, to be a witness would be a waste of time. They said they needed to move forward with Trump's impeachment now because it dealt with foreign interference in the presidential election. And another election was less than a year away. They never subpoenaed John Bolton. He could have been called to testify at the trial in the Senate, but a Republican controlled Senate, new Bolton would tie Trump to holding up Ukraine's military aid until the government in Kiev would do him a political favor by digging up dirt on Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and Bolton wrote just that in his book, Trump attempted to act against a foreign power for political gain against the interests of America. Once again, the president acted in his own selfish interest. The country came last in Trump world. I'm Dana Lewis. Thanks for listening and subscribe to our podcast. And I'll talk to you again.

#@ambjohnbolton #iran NPT nucleararms biden trump whitehouse backstory afghanistan russia @putin putin @navalny

0 notes

bayrockozeo714-blog · 4 years

Text

Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained

(Photo : Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained)

Tevfik Arif's business connections to Donald Trump have become the source of speculation among conspiracy theorists and the media, but are there any truths to these stories?

Tevfik Arif is the owner of Bayrock Group, https://kazakhbusinessbulletin.wordpress.com/kazakh-businessman/tevfik-arif/ one of the primary developers of Trump SoHo Tower.

Tevfik Arif is an international entrepreneur, investor and property developer. In the United States, Arif is best known as one of the primary developers of the Trump SoHo Tower in New York City.

Arif's partnership with Donald Trump coupled with his past position working within the Soviet Union Ministry of Commerce and Trade at the beginning of his professional career has made the real estate developer the subject of numerous conspiracy theories in an attempt to establish a distant connection between the President of the United States and Russia. The fact that Arif has preferred to live a private life out of the spotlight has only added mystery and allure to these claims. But who exactly is Tevfik Arif and what is his history with Donald Trump?

Exposing the conspiracy surrounding Tevfik Arif

Tevfik Arif's connections to Donald Trump have proven to be nothing more than a legitimate business partnership. While in the early stages of their partnership in the early 2000s, Bayrock and Tevfik Arif Doyen the Trump Organization did discuss plans to create an international chain of Trump-branded hotel complexes in Turkey, Moscow, Ukraine, and various other countries, these ambitions were never more than discussions that did not get past the planning phase.

The working relationship that developed between Arif and Donald Trump ended before the latter announced his candidacy for President of the United States in 2015. This fact is often omitted when attempts are made to use Tevfik Arif to connect Trump to Russia. The timelines of the development of Trump SoHo Tower and Donald Trump's campaign for president do not line up.

Who is Tevfik Arif?

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Arif left public service in pursuit of business opportunities that were prevalent United States during the privatization of industries that followed https://twitter.com/tevfikarifx the dissolution of the communist government regime in the 1990s. Arif and his brother acquired businesses in the mineral and natural resources industry in Kazakhstan, including a chromium plant and other holdings. Arif also worked as a consultant and field manager for other international businesses in the same industry. He owned or managed several additional projects including an import and export firm and jewelry business.

Arif establishes Bayrock Group

Success set Donald Trump And Tevfik Arif the stage for Arif's next challenge, the American real estate market. In 2001, Arif established Bayrock Group, a real estate development and investment firm, in New York City. Bayrock's first projects were modest and included the redevelopment of a shopping plaza in the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood of Brooklyn.

Article Source:

https://www.hngn.com/articles/229505/20200519/tevfik-arif-donald-trump-and-the-russia-conspiracy-explained.htm

0 notes

tevfikarifbayrockvxrw077-blog · 4 years

Text

Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained

(Photo : Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained)

Tevfik Arif's business connections to Donald Trump have become the source of speculation among conspiracy theorists and the media, but are there any truths to these stories?

Tevfik Arif is the owner of Bayrock Group, one of the primary developers of Trump SoHo Tower.

Tevfik Arif is an international entrepreneur, investor and property developer. In the United States, Arif is best known as one of the primary developers of the Trump SoHo Tower in New York City.

Arif's partnership with Donald Trump coupled with his past position working within the Soviet Union Ministry of Commerce and Trade at the beginning of his professional career has made the real estate developer the subject of numerous conspiracy theories in an attempt to establish a distant connection between the President of the United States and Russia. The fact that Arif has preferred to live a private life out of the spotlight has only added mystery and allure to these claims. But who exactly is Tevfik Arif and what is his history with Donald Trump?

Exposing the conspiracy surrounding Tevfik Arif

The working relationship that developed between Arif and Donald Trump ended before the latter announced his candidacy for President of the United States in 2015. This fact is often omitted when attempts are made to use Tevfik Arif to connect Trump to Russia. The timelines of the development of Trump SoHo Tower and Donald Trump's campaign for president do https://therealdeal.com/2018/02/22/kriss-bayrock-agree-to-settle-lawsuit-after-8-years/ not line up.

Who is Tevfik Arif?

Tevfik Doyen Arif was born and https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/all-about-tevfik-arif-and-bayrock-group-beyond-donald-trump-and-trump-soho/2019/07/15 grew up in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic. He also has Turkish citizenship through his parents. Arif studied international relations at the Moscow Trade and Economic Institute. After receiving his degree, the young Arif began working in the Soviet Union's Ministry of Commerce and Trade. During his time as a civil servant, Arif rose from a chief economist to the deputy head of the Ministry's Hotel Management Department.

Arif establishes Bayrock Group

The development of the Trump SoHo hotel and condominium complex was soon underway. The project would be developed and built by Bayrock in real estate partnership with the Sapir Organization. The building would lease the Trump name from The Trump Organization through a licensing and management agreement that awarded the future president's company 18% equity in the project. The Trump Organization did not invest any of its own capital in the development of Trump SoHo Tower.

Trump SoHo was completed in 2008 and opened in 2011. The 46-story building was intended to be the first of a series of similar projects between Bayrock Group and The Trump Organization in places such as Florida and doyen Arizona. However, the economic downturn that hit the United States real estate market in 2008 prevented the completion of these planned projects.

Article Source:

https://www.hngn.com/articles/229505/20200519/tevfik-arif-donald-trump-and-the-russia-conspiracy-explained.htm

0 notes

tevfikarifdoyenbdmm031-blog · 4 years

Text

Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained

(Photo : Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained)

Tevfik Arif's business connections to Donald Trump have become the source of USA speculation among conspiracy theorists and the media, but are there any truths to these stories?

Tevfik Arif is the owner of Bayrock Group, one of the primary developers of Trump SoHo Tower.

Tevfik Arif is an international entrepreneur, investor and property developer. In the United States, Arif is best known as one of the primary developers of the Trump SoHo Tower in New York City.

Arif's partnership with Donald Trump coupled with his past position working within the Soviet Union Ministry of Commerce and Trade at the beginning of his professional career has made the real estate developer the subject of numerous conspiracy theories in an attempt to establish a distant connection between the President of the United States and Russia. The fact that Arif has preferred to live a private life out of the spotlight has only added mystery and allure to these claims. But who exactly is Tevfik Arif and what is his history with Donald Trump?

Exposing the conspiracy surrounding Tevfik Arif

The working relationship that developed between Arif and Donald Trump ended before the latter announced his candidacy for President football of the United States in 2015. This fact is often omitted when attempts are made to use Tevfik Arif to connect Trump to Russia. The timelines of the development of Trump SoHo Tower and Donald Trump's campaign for president do not line up.

Who is Tevfik Arif?

Tevfik Arif was born and grew up in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic. He also has Turkish citizenship through his parents. Arif studied international relations at the Moscow Trade and Economic Institute. After receiving his degree, the young Arif began working in the Soviet Union's Ministry of Commerce and Trade. During his https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Nonprofit-Organization/Tevfik-Arif-Bayrock-258754714625630/ time as a civil servant, Arif rose from a chief economist to the deputy head of the Ministry's Hotel Management Department.

Arif establishes Bayrock Group

Trump SoHo Get more info was completed in 2008 and opened in 2011. The 46-story building was intended to be the first of a series of similar projects between Bayrock Group and The Trump Organization in places such as Florida and Arizona. However, the economic downturn that hit the United States real estate market in 2008 prevented the completion of these planned projects.

Article Source:

https://www.hngn.com/articles/229505/20200519/tevfik-arif-donald-trump-and-the-russia-conspiracy-explained.htm

0 notes

tevfikarifbsai461-blog · 4 years

Text

Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained

(Photo : Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained)

Tevfik Arif's business connections to Donald Trump have become the source of speculation among conspiracy theorists and the media, but are there any truths to these stories?

Tevfik Arif is the owner of Bayrock Group, one of the primary developers of Trump SoHo Tower.

Tevfik Arif is an international entrepreneur, investor and property developer. In the United States, Arif is best known as one of the primary developers of the Trump SoHo Tower in New York City.

Arif's partnership with Donald Trump coupled with his past position working within the Soviet Union Ministry of Commerce and Trade at the beginning of his professional career has made the real estate developer the subject of numerous conspiracy theories in an attempt to establish a distant connection between the President of the United States and Russia. The fact that Arif has preferred to live a private life out of the spotlight has only added mystery and allure to these claims. But who exactly is Tevfik Arif and what is his history with Donald Trump?

Exposing the conspiracy surrounding Tevfik Arif

After much public scrutiny, there is no USA evidence to show Arif or his company, Bayrock Group, facilitated communications or negotiations between Donald Trump and Russian officials. Any attempt to connect Arif or his company to nefarious or illegal activity involving Donald Trump and Russian officials have proven slanderous and libelous to Arif and Bayrock Group.

The working relationship that developed between Arif and Donald Trump ended before the latter announced his candidacy for President of the United States in 2015. This fact is often omitted when attempts are made to use Tevfik Arif to connect Trump to Russia. The timelines of the development of Trump SoHo Tower and Donald Trump's campaign for president do not line up.

Who is Tevfik Arif?

After the fall of the Soviet Doyen Union, Arif left public service in pursuit of business opportunities that were prevalent during the privatization of industries that followed the dissolution of the communist government regime in the 1990s. Arif and his brother acquired businesses in the mineral and natural resources industry in Kazakhstan, including a chromium plant and other holdings. Arif also worked as a consultant and field manager for other international businesses in the same industry. He owned or managed several additional projects including an import and export firm and jewelry business.

Arif establishes Bayrock Group

The development of the Trump SoHo hotel and condominium complex was soon underway. The project would be developed and built by Bayrock in partnership https://twitter.com/tevfikarifdoyen https://twitter.com/tevfikarifx with the Sapir Organization. The building would lease the Trump name from The Trump Organization through a licensing and management agreement that awarded the future president's company 18% equity in the project. The Trump Organization did not invest any of its own capital in the development of Trump SoHo Tower.

Article Source:

https://www.hngn.com/articles/229505/20200519/tevfik-arif-donald-trump-and-the-russia-conspiracy-explained.htm

0 notes

bayrocktevfikarifcghb119-blog · 4 years

Text

Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained

(Photo : Tevfik Arif: Donald Trump and the Russia Conspiracy Explained)

Tevfik Arif's business connections to Donald Trump have become the source of speculation among conspiracy theorists and the media, but are there any truths to these stories?

Tevfik Arif is the owner of Bayrock Group, one of the primary developers of Trump SoHo Tower.

Tevfik Arif is an international entrepreneur, investor and property developer. In the United States, Arif is best known as one of the primary developers of the Trump SoHo Tower in New York City.

Arif's partnership with Donald Trump coupled with his past position working within the Soviet Union Ministry of Commerce and Trade at the beginning of his professional career has made the real estate developer the subject of numerous Doyen conspiracy theories in an attempt to establish a distant connection between the President of the United States and Russia. The fact that Arif has preferred to live a private life out of the spotlight has only added mystery and allure to these claims. But who exactly is Tevfik Arif and what is his history with Donald Trump?

Exposing the conspiracy surrounding Tevfik Arif

After much public scrutiny, there is no evidence to Visit this link show Arif or his company, Bayrock Group, facilitated communications or negotiations between Donald Trump and Russian officials. Any attempt to connect Arif or his company to nefarious or illegal activity involving Donald Trump and Russian officials have proven slanderous and libelous to Arif and Bayrock Group.

The working relationship that developed between Arif and Donald Trump ended before the latter announced his candidacy for President of the United https://nativenewsonline.net/advertise/branded-voices/tevfik-arif-biography-and-legendary-bayrock-group-business-empire/ States in 2015. This fact is often omitted when attempts are made to use Tevfik Arif to connect Trump to Russia. The timelines of the development of Trump SoHo Tower and Donald Trump's campaign for president do not line up.

Who is Tevfik Arif?

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Arif left public service in pursuit of business opportunities that were prevalent during the privatization of industries that followed the dissolution of the communist government regime United States in the 1990s. Arif and his brother acquired businesses in the mineral and natural resources industry in Kazakhstan, including a chromium plant and other holdings. Arif also worked as a consultant and field manager for other international businesses in the same industry. He owned or managed several additional projects including an import and export firm and jewelry business.

Arif establishes Bayrock Group

Arif, viewed by the New York establishment as a foreigner at the helm of a little-known company, had ambitions to develop luxury real estate Donald Trump And Tevfik Arif projects throughout the city. By teaming up with the Trump Organization, Bayrock could achieve the level of luxury recognition that came with the Trump brand.

Article Source:

https://www.hngn.com/articles/229505/20200519/tevfik-arif-donald-trump-and-the-russia-conspiracy-explained.htm

0 notes