右翼分子吐槽扯淡专楼
"The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
1473 个评论
整波兰匈牙利是因为民主法制倒退，现在警告瑞典意大利又是为了什么呢？在大西洋两岸自由派精英的头脑里，不推进自由主义/全球主义就是反民主，民主过程只有作为越来越激进的自由主义的载体才有价值，这点在他们近年的言论中已经格外明显了。
Italian election: EU can work with any democracy but has 'tools' if it gets 'difficult', VDL says
The European Commission is willing to work with any democratic government across the bloc but has the "tools" if things go in a "difficult direction", Ursula von der Leyen has said in response to a question about Italy's upcoming elections.
The latest polls available suggest a right-wing three-party coalition, led by Brothers of Italy (FDI), a Eurosceptic party that directly traces its roots to a neo-fascist movement, is poised to win a majority of seats.
......
"We'll see the outcome of the elections. We just had elections in Sweden, too. My approach is that whatever democratic government is willing to work with us, we're working together."
Von der Leyen said that when heads of state and government take part in the European Council, they realise their "future and well-being" depend on all the other 26 member states, reflecting the nature of negotiation and consensus that characterises the bloc's complex decision-making.
"That's the beauty of democracy. We're sometimes slow. We talk a lot, I know. But that's democracy too," von der Leyen said.
"So, we’ll see. If things go in a difficult direction – I've spoken about Hungary and Poland – we have tools," she added.
Italian election: EU can work with any democracy but has 'tools' if it gets 'difficult', VDL says
The European Commission is willing to work with any democratic government across the bloc but has the "tools" if things go in a "difficult direction", Ursula von der Leyen has said in response to a question about Italy's upcoming elections.
The latest polls available suggest a right-wing three-party coalition, led by Brothers of Italy (FDI), a Eurosceptic party that directly traces its roots to a neo-fascist movement, is poised to win a majority of seats.
......
"We'll see the outcome of the elections. We just had elections in Sweden, too. My approach is that whatever democratic government is willing to work with us, we're working together."
Von der Leyen said that when heads of state and government take part in the European Council, they realise their "future and well-being" depend on all the other 26 member states, reflecting the nature of negotiation and consensus that characterises the bloc's complex decision-making.
"That's the beauty of democracy. We're sometimes slow. We talk a lot, I know. But that's democracy too," von der Leyen said.
"So, we’ll see. If things go in a difficult direction – I've spoken about Hungary and Poland – we have tools," she added.
Has the West Guaranteed Higher Energy Prices this Winter?
...As one would expect, complicating Russia's ability to export its oil would cause Putin to feel the fiscal pain he has so far avoided. But it would also result in booming crude prices across the board. While Russia would be able to redirect a portion of the oil to new buyers, it's highly unlikely alternative crude producers have the capacity to replace whatever Russian barrels are lost after the EU and U.K. insurance limitations kick in. Even Saudi Arabia, the world's top crude producer, doesn't have the short-term spare capacity to keep supply from plummeting—and even if Riyadh did possess such capacity, it's an open question whether the kingdom would actually use it (given Aramco's revenue windfall this year, the Saudis don't have much of an incentive to cooperate anyway).
For all these reasons, energy analysts are projecting oil prices to rise to $200 a barrel once Europe's insurance ban comes into effect. Such a substantial price hike is the last thing U.S. officials want heading into an election year. Washington is trying to mitigate turbulence in energy markets by adopting a price cap on Russian crude, which would keep Russian oil on the market but limit the amount of revenue Moscow receives. The G7 major economies officially endorsed the plan on September 2, and participating nations hope to implement it by the end of the year.
But the fact that so many issues remain unaddressed doesn't inspire much confidence in the scheme. First, slapping a quota on a global commodity is bound to ruffle feathers in China, India, and much of the so-called Global South, which are historically opposed to Western-imposed sanctions measures. There will inevitably be different opinions on how low the cap should go and how the West might respond to those who don't support it. Putin, who has already exploited Russia's status as a major natural gas producer to inflict economic pain on Europe, would also be sure to retaliate. The Russian leader has already stated that Moscow would no longer supply oil, gas, and coal to states involved in what he considers aggression against Russian interests.
The U.S. and its European allies have backed themselves into a corner. We can only hope establishing a buyers' cartel on Russian crude works as intended. Because if it doesn't, the West will be setting itself up for a deeper energy crisis as EU and U.K. insurers are forced to turn away from the Russian oil sector. The experience at the gas pump could get a lot more painful in the winter months.
...As one would expect, complicating Russia's ability to export its oil would cause Putin to feel the fiscal pain he has so far avoided. But it would also result in booming crude prices across the board. While Russia would be able to redirect a portion of the oil to new buyers, it's highly unlikely alternative crude producers have the capacity to replace whatever Russian barrels are lost after the EU and U.K. insurance limitations kick in. Even Saudi Arabia, the world's top crude producer, doesn't have the short-term spare capacity to keep supply from plummeting—and even if Riyadh did possess such capacity, it's an open question whether the kingdom would actually use it (given Aramco's revenue windfall this year, the Saudis don't have much of an incentive to cooperate anyway).
For all these reasons, energy analysts are projecting oil prices to rise to $200 a barrel once Europe's insurance ban comes into effect. Such a substantial price hike is the last thing U.S. officials want heading into an election year. Washington is trying to mitigate turbulence in energy markets by adopting a price cap on Russian crude, which would keep Russian oil on the market but limit the amount of revenue Moscow receives. The G7 major economies officially endorsed the plan on September 2, and participating nations hope to implement it by the end of the year.
But the fact that so many issues remain unaddressed doesn't inspire much confidence in the scheme. First, slapping a quota on a global commodity is bound to ruffle feathers in China, India, and much of the so-called Global South, which are historically opposed to Western-imposed sanctions measures. There will inevitably be different opinions on how low the cap should go and how the West might respond to those who don't support it. Putin, who has already exploited Russia's status as a major natural gas producer to inflict economic pain on Europe, would also be sure to retaliate. The Russian leader has already stated that Moscow would no longer supply oil, gas, and coal to states involved in what he considers aggression against Russian interests.
The U.S. and its European allies have backed themselves into a corner. We can only hope establishing a buyers' cartel on Russian crude works as intended. Because if it doesn't, the West will be setting itself up for a deeper energy crisis as EU and U.K. insurers are forced to turn away from the Russian oil sector. The experience at the gas pump could get a lot more painful in the winter months.
European Industry Buckles Under Weight of Soaring Energy Prices
Europe’s industrial giants have fretted for months that gas shortages this winter will cripple production. But even with fuel available, companies are discovering they can’t afford it.
“It’s not about shutdowns. It’s pricing, it’s cost,” said Christian Levin, chief executive officer of Traton SE, the truckmaking unit of Volkswagen AG.
......
“At the current price level, energy-intensive German industry is no longer globally competitive,” a Covestro spokeswoman said. “For a number of chemicals, imports from the US or China are already cheaper than producing them locally.”
Where possible, manufacturers including Volkswagen and BMW AG are moving from gas to oil or coal to keep facilities running. But some energy-intensive manufacturing -- such as metals, paper and ceramics -- has become unfeasible, prompting a growing number of companies to shut down, shift production abroad or, like chemical giant BASF SE, to import key materials like ammonia from competitors. Mercedes-Benz AG has actually ramped up production of key auto parts to stockpile in case it has to close German factories.
“These burdens are causing lasting damage to the industrial core of our economy,” said Christian Seyfert, managing director of VIK, a group that represents energy-intensive companies. “We urgently advise politicians to take decisive action so that Germany and Europe as a business location are not completely left behind internationally.”
.......
The stakes are perhaps highest in Germany, where industrial production makes up roughly 30% of the economy and employs around 1.15 million people. Energy-intensive factories across the country supply everything from gearbox components for cars to the chemicals for medicines and everyday plastics. Covestro, which makes materials for the building and automotive industries, said demand is starting to break down.
“We’re slowly losing our customers,” Steilemann said. “We have an increased number of insolvencies, an increased number of closures and very restrained purchasing.”
......
“Our companies can no longer cope with any further burdens,” said Wolfgang Grosse Entrup, President of the chemical association VCI, an organization that represents the likes of BASF and Evonik Industries AG, key suppliers to Germany’s carmaking sector. “The situation is becoming more and more drastic.”
Europe’s industrial giants have fretted for months that gas shortages this winter will cripple production. But even with fuel available, companies are discovering they can’t afford it.
“It’s not about shutdowns. It’s pricing, it’s cost,” said Christian Levin, chief executive officer of Traton SE, the truckmaking unit of Volkswagen AG.
......
“At the current price level, energy-intensive German industry is no longer globally competitive,” a Covestro spokeswoman said. “For a number of chemicals, imports from the US or China are already cheaper than producing them locally.”
Where possible, manufacturers including Volkswagen and BMW AG are moving from gas to oil or coal to keep facilities running. But some energy-intensive manufacturing -- such as metals, paper and ceramics -- has become unfeasible, prompting a growing number of companies to shut down, shift production abroad or, like chemical giant BASF SE, to import key materials like ammonia from competitors. Mercedes-Benz AG has actually ramped up production of key auto parts to stockpile in case it has to close German factories.
“These burdens are causing lasting damage to the industrial core of our economy,” said Christian Seyfert, managing director of VIK, a group that represents energy-intensive companies. “We urgently advise politicians to take decisive action so that Germany and Europe as a business location are not completely left behind internationally.”
.......
The stakes are perhaps highest in Germany, where industrial production makes up roughly 30% of the economy and employs around 1.15 million people. Energy-intensive factories across the country supply everything from gearbox components for cars to the chemicals for medicines and everyday plastics. Covestro, which makes materials for the building and automotive industries, said demand is starting to break down.
“We’re slowly losing our customers,” Steilemann said. “We have an increased number of insolvencies, an increased number of closures and very restrained purchasing.”
......
“Our companies can no longer cope with any further burdens,” said Wolfgang Grosse Entrup, President of the chemical association VCI, an organization that represents the likes of BASF and Evonik Industries AG, key suppliers to Germany’s carmaking sector. “The situation is becoming more and more drastic.”
As Ukraine Advances on Ground, Clock Ticks in Washington on Aid
WASHINGTON—Widespread support in Congress for pumping aid to Ukraine is starting to show signs of fracturing as many Republicans in the House question whether the money would be better spent combating China and tackling economic problems facing the U.S., according to a dozen lawmakers and congressional staff from both parties.
Concern about a potential shift in U.S. support comes as Ukraine continues its push east, with its forces seizing about 3,500 square miles of territory in the northeastern Kharkiv region as part of a surprise offensive earlier this month. U.S. military assistance, including Himars—long-range rocket launchers—have been credited with helping Ukraine push back Russian forces.
......
As November’s midterm elections approach, the continuing flow of aid is falling out of favor with many House Republicans who are struggling to justify the overseas spending to their constituents in the midst of domestic concerns including high inflation and economic uncertainty. That might intensify if Republicans, as expected, win a majority in the House starting in January.
Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R., La.) and conference chair Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) the second- and third-highest ranking House Republicans, recently declined to commit when asked publicly whether they would continue providing aid to Ukraine should Republicans take control. Votes on aid since the invasion have passed with overwhelming support from both parties.
“There are a lot of members that want to see more accountability in the Department of Defense and more of a focus on the threats that are out there,” Mr. Scalise told reporters earlier this month. “China is moving very aggressively to build up a naval fleet, and right now our naval fleet is in decline.”
......
Some Republicans have for months indicated that they might be growing impatient with U.S. assistance to Ukraine. In May, Heritage Action, the political wing of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said it opposed the $40 billion Ukraine aid bill agreed to by the Biden administration and Congress in May, citing concern over U.S. inflation, debt and other spending priorities.
Rep. Roger Williams (R., Texas) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) have both voted against assistance, but they have said they have acted over concern that the aid to Ukraine was depleting U.S. weapons and jeopardized U.S. national security as a result.
WASHINGTON—Widespread support in Congress for pumping aid to Ukraine is starting to show signs of fracturing as many Republicans in the House question whether the money would be better spent combating China and tackling economic problems facing the U.S., according to a dozen lawmakers and congressional staff from both parties.
Concern about a potential shift in U.S. support comes as Ukraine continues its push east, with its forces seizing about 3,500 square miles of territory in the northeastern Kharkiv region as part of a surprise offensive earlier this month. U.S. military assistance, including Himars—long-range rocket launchers—have been credited with helping Ukraine push back Russian forces.
......
As November’s midterm elections approach, the continuing flow of aid is falling out of favor with many House Republicans who are struggling to justify the overseas spending to their constituents in the midst of domestic concerns including high inflation and economic uncertainty. That might intensify if Republicans, as expected, win a majority in the House starting in January.
Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R., La.) and conference chair Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) the second- and third-highest ranking House Republicans, recently declined to commit when asked publicly whether they would continue providing aid to Ukraine should Republicans take control. Votes on aid since the invasion have passed with overwhelming support from both parties.
“There are a lot of members that want to see more accountability in the Department of Defense and more of a focus on the threats that are out there,” Mr. Scalise told reporters earlier this month. “China is moving very aggressively to build up a naval fleet, and right now our naval fleet is in decline.”
......
Some Republicans have for months indicated that they might be growing impatient with U.S. assistance to Ukraine. In May, Heritage Action, the political wing of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said it opposed the $40 billion Ukraine aid bill agreed to by the Biden administration and Congress in May, citing concern over U.S. inflation, debt and other spending priorities.
Rep. Roger Williams (R., Texas) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) have both voted against assistance, but they have said they have acted over concern that the aid to Ukraine was depleting U.S. weapons and jeopardized U.S. national security as a result.
要不是我性情温良，不好惹事，我会在很多帖子下面重复这句话：
美国不欠你们的。
美国不欠你们的。
喊着打倒帝国主义 却又不想放弃帝国主义的影响力
>>要不是我性情温良，不好惹事，我会在很多帖子下面重复这句话：美国不欠你们的。
新时代需要新的奠基材料。
这也是个自主选择，自发行动的过程，没有谁可以真的强迫材料们做他们自己真正不愿意的事，都是靠他们自己高高兴兴完成的。因为自己认定的东西，站在自己认定的位置，做着自己认定的事情。而且高高兴兴地「坚守」位置，同时还高高兴兴地排除一切「无端干涉的敌人」。
So, what's the surprise when Destiny finally comes due?
我就常想啊，如果材料是真的绝对必要，那么最好就是他们。
同样对他们采取无视的选择，但我是出于自信，自信自己不欠他们任何事，且无论看到他们怎样，自己都能真心地笑出声来。就像确信今年在10-12月这个区间，一定能收到悦耳动人的德国式哀嚎一样。
-----------------------------------
戏是给观众看的，不是给角色搞教育的。
进步派巨星Jacinda Ardern呼吁建议国际言论审查机制，或者说她和拥趸们不愿意承认是言论审查机制但实际上就是的机制：
New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern at the U.N.: ‘Disinformation’ Should Be Controlled Like Guns, Bombs, and Nukes
Ardern called for “disinformation” to be treated like bullets, bombs, or nuclear weapons, conceding that “a lie online or from a podium” does not immediately kill people like the “weapons of old,” but in the long run could be more dangerous:
...
“But while I cannot tell you today what the answer is to this challenge, I can say with complete certainty that we cannot ignore it. To do so poses an equal threat to the norms we all value,” she continued.
“After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?” she asked.
New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern at the U.N.: ‘Disinformation’ Should Be Controlled Like Guns, Bombs, and Nukes
Ardern called for “disinformation” to be treated like bullets, bombs, or nuclear weapons, conceding that “a lie online or from a podium” does not immediately kill people like the “weapons of old,” but in the long run could be more dangerous:
But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms. To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?
This is no longer a hypothetical. The weapons of war have changed, they are upon us and require the same level of action and activity that we put into the weapons of old.
We recognized the threats that the old weapons created. We came together as communities to minimize these threats. We created international rules, norms and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties – rather, it was a preservation of them. The same must apply now as we take on these new challenges.
...
“But while I cannot tell you today what the answer is to this challenge, I can say with complete certainty that we cannot ignore it. To do so poses an equal threat to the norms we all value,” she continued.
“After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?” she asked.
“法西斯来了！法西斯又来了！”
这个时代的政治家占全三个反对，就在媒体上锁定了“法西斯”称号：反对大规模移民、反对弱化瓦解家庭、反对无限制推广LGBT意识形态。
这个时代的政治家占全三个反对，就在媒体上锁定了“法西斯”称号：反对大规模移民、反对弱化瓦解家庭、反对无限制推广LGBT意识形态。
右翼平民派在英国脱欧和川普之后最大的选战胜利：
Italy's far right set to win election - exit poll
Far-right leader Giorgia Meloni has won Italy's election, according to exit polls, and is on course to become the country's first female prime minister.
If they are confirmed, Ms Meloni will aim to form Italy's most right-wing government since World War Two.
A Meloni-led Italy will alarm much of Europe with Russia at war in Ukraine.
She is predicted to win between 22-26% of the vote, says a Rai exit poll, ahead of her closest rival Enrico Letta from the centre left.
Several exit polls just published given her right-wing alliance a commanding lead, with 41-45% of the vote.
The centre left was well behind with 25.5%-29.5%. They failed to form a viable challenge with other parties, after Italy's 18-month national unity government collapsed in July.
Turnout was a dramatically low 64.7% by the time polls closed, said Italy's interior ministry. Voting levels were especially poor in southern regions including Sicily.
The decision on who becomes Italy's next leader is up to the president, not Giorgia Meloni, and that will take time.
Although she has worked hard to soften her image, emphasising her support for Ukraine and diluting anti-EU rhetoric, she leads a party rooted in a post-war movement that rose out of Benito Mussolini's fascists.
Her allies, Matteo Salvini of the far-right League, and Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right Forza Italia have both had close ties with Russia.
Italy's far right set to win election - exit poll
Far-right leader Giorgia Meloni has won Italy's election, according to exit polls, and is on course to become the country's first female prime minister.
If they are confirmed, Ms Meloni will aim to form Italy's most right-wing government since World War Two.
A Meloni-led Italy will alarm much of Europe with Russia at war in Ukraine.
She is predicted to win between 22-26% of the vote, says a Rai exit poll, ahead of her closest rival Enrico Letta from the centre left.
Several exit polls just published given her right-wing alliance a commanding lead, with 41-45% of the vote.
The centre left was well behind with 25.5%-29.5%. They failed to form a viable challenge with other parties, after Italy's 18-month national unity government collapsed in July.
Turnout was a dramatically low 64.7% by the time polls closed, said Italy's interior ministry. Voting levels were especially poor in southern regions including Sicily.
The decision on who becomes Italy's next leader is up to the president, not Giorgia Meloni, and that will take time.
Although she has worked hard to soften her image, emphasising her support for Ukraine and diluting anti-EU rhetoric, she leads a party rooted in a post-war movement that rose out of Benito Mussolini's fascists.
Her allies, Matteo Salvini of the far-right League, and Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right Forza Italia have both had close ties with Russia.
Italy set for hard-right turn, exit polls show
A coalition of three right-wing parties is on course for majorities in both houses of the Italian parliament, exit polls from Sunday's general election show, setting the stage for Italy's most conservative government in decades.
Why it matters: The result puts Giorgia Meloni, who leads the Brothers of Italy, in pole position to become prime minister. Her coalition also includes The League, led by far-right firebrand Matteo Salvini, and former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia.
- Meloni, who would be Italy's first female PM, is seeking to reassure EU leaders that she'd govern as a center-right pragmatist, stand by Ukraine and spend EU recovery funds responsibly.
- Yes, but: She has a history of defending far-right leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orbán and her party has fascist roots. It's a matter of debate whether her front-runner status says more about her own drift to the center or the Italian public's willingness to vote for the extremes.
Flashback: Brothers of Italy won just 4% of the vote during the last general election in 2018. It will now be easily the largest party.
......
What's next: Meloni will not necessarily take the top job for herself, and the government formation process often moves slowly.
What to watch: While Salvini and the 85-year-old Berlusconi have both come under scrutiny for their past praise of Vladimir Putin (just last week, Berlusconi said Putin had simply wanted to put "decent people" in charge in Kyiv), Meloni has backed sanctions on Russia and weapons exports to Ukraine.
- The next government will face significant economic headwinds and an energy price crunch over the winter. Recent history suggests it might not last all that long.
A coalition of three right-wing parties is on course for majorities in both houses of the Italian parliament, exit polls from Sunday's general election show, setting the stage for Italy's most conservative government in decades.
Why it matters: The result puts Giorgia Meloni, who leads the Brothers of Italy, in pole position to become prime minister. Her coalition also includes The League, led by far-right firebrand Matteo Salvini, and former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia.
- Meloni, who would be Italy's first female PM, is seeking to reassure EU leaders that she'd govern as a center-right pragmatist, stand by Ukraine and spend EU recovery funds responsibly.
- Yes, but: She has a history of defending far-right leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orbán and her party has fascist roots. It's a matter of debate whether her front-runner status says more about her own drift to the center or the Italian public's willingness to vote for the extremes.
Flashback: Brothers of Italy won just 4% of the vote during the last general election in 2018. It will now be easily the largest party.
......
What's next: Meloni will not necessarily take the top job for herself, and the government formation process often moves slowly.
What to watch: While Salvini and the 85-year-old Berlusconi have both come under scrutiny for their past praise of Vladimir Putin (just last week, Berlusconi said Putin had simply wanted to put "decent people" in charge in Kyiv), Meloni has backed sanctions on Russia and weapons exports to Ukraine.
- The next government will face significant economic headwinds and an energy price crunch over the winter. Recent history suggests it might not last all that long.
Giorgia Meloni, il primo ministro italiano
这下意大利「事变」了，再加上之前瑞典宣布的「反移民转向」，终于到VDL的 "Tools" 发挥作用的时候。
真是期待能再现当年纽约时报总部，一群真进步绅士们，集体霸凌一个「就是不肯进步的」女人的盛况。
https://pincong.rocks/article/21684
真是期待能再现当年纽约时报总部，一群真进步绅士们，集体霸凌一个「就是不肯进步的」女人的盛况。
https://pincong.rocks/article/21684
Leo Strauss在1960年讲马克思的课上预见了transgenderism和transhumanism的威胁：
Partly basing himself on Adam Smith, Marx makes this suggestion: the inequality of capacities which is empirically undeniable is the effect rather than the cause of the division of labor. So the inequality of capacities, in other words, is a social product, not a natural datum. Great inequality of capacities is certainly the effect of the division of labor. The division of labor in its turn leads rather to the impoverishment of the activities of the individual. All this would seem to lead to the conclusion that with the abolition of the division of labor, eventually there will be equality of capacities. But does not the inequality have natural roots? Yet what is the historical process except the conquest of nature, and therefore also to some extent of human nature? But to what extent is the historical process a conquest of human nature and therefore a conquest also of natural inequality? Marx is unable to give a principle here, and that is a revenge for his contempt about the question of the essence of man; because if the essence of man remains so wholly indeterminate, how can you then have any principle here?
Let us read the clearest passage of Marx on the natural root of the division of labor: “With the development of property the division of labor develops. The division of labor was originally nothing except the division of labor in the sexual act.”Period. In other words—that is of course an absolutely fantastic assertion, because if you want to be realistic you would have to say that this division of labor is not limited to the sexual act; it has to do with procreation as a whole. You know that men do not become pregnant but women do. But this wholly unreasonable limitation to the sexual act instead of taking the whole, procreation, is characteristic of the whole procedure. Now if you think this through, what is the conclusion? If the division of labor is rooted ultimately in the bisexuality of man—that is the primary form—and the division of labor is to be overcome, let’s get rid of the bisexuality. Yet don’t laugh. I mean, it is silly but it is a very serious problem, and there is of course—and you know, I’m not speaking of Mr. or Mrs. Jorgensen* in particular [laughter], but I’m concerned with the—people have given some thought throughout the ages to the question of producing human beings in test tubes. You know, the homunculus problem.Well, that is a practically absurd suggestion; that is clear. But we are concerned now—what is the principle which allows us to say that is absurd and not merely some vague knowledge of what we can do and cannot do?
Partly basing himself on Adam Smith, Marx makes this suggestion: the inequality of capacities which is empirically undeniable is the effect rather than the cause of the division of labor. So the inequality of capacities, in other words, is a social product, not a natural datum. Great inequality of capacities is certainly the effect of the division of labor. The division of labor in its turn leads rather to the impoverishment of the activities of the individual. All this would seem to lead to the conclusion that with the abolition of the division of labor, eventually there will be equality of capacities. But does not the inequality have natural roots? Yet what is the historical process except the conquest of nature, and therefore also to some extent of human nature? But to what extent is the historical process a conquest of human nature and therefore a conquest also of natural inequality? Marx is unable to give a principle here, and that is a revenge for his contempt about the question of the essence of man; because if the essence of man remains so wholly indeterminate, how can you then have any principle here?
Let us read the clearest passage of Marx on the natural root of the division of labor: “With the development of property the division of labor develops. The division of labor was originally nothing except the division of labor in the sexual act.”Period. In other words—that is of course an absolutely fantastic assertion, because if you want to be realistic you would have to say that this division of labor is not limited to the sexual act; it has to do with procreation as a whole. You know that men do not become pregnant but women do. But this wholly unreasonable limitation to the sexual act instead of taking the whole, procreation, is characteristic of the whole procedure. Now if you think this through, what is the conclusion? If the division of labor is rooted ultimately in the bisexuality of man—that is the primary form—and the division of labor is to be overcome, let’s get rid of the bisexuality. Yet don’t laugh. I mean, it is silly but it is a very serious problem, and there is of course—and you know, I’m not speaking of Mr. or Mrs. Jorgensen* in particular [laughter], but I’m concerned with the—people have given some thought throughout the ages to the question of producing human beings in test tubes. You know, the homunculus problem.Well, that is a practically absurd suggestion; that is clear. But we are concerned now—what is the principle which allows us to say that is absurd and not merely some vague knowledge of what we can do and cannot do?
德国网警和法庭正在为其他西方国家收紧网络言论控制试水：
Where Online Hate Speech Can Bring the Police to Your Door
Battling far-right extremism, Germany has gone further than any other Western democracy to prosecute individuals for what they say online, testing the limits of free speech on the internet.
......
“We are making it clear that anyone who posts hate messages must expect the police to be at the front door afterward,” Holger Münch, the head of the Federal Criminal Police Office, said after the March raids.
Hate speech, extremism, misogyny and misinformation are well-known byproducts of the internet. But the people behind the most toxic online behavior typically avoid any personal major real-world consequences. Most Western democracies like the United States have avoided policing the internet because of free speech rights, leaving a sea of slurs, targeted harassment and tweets telling public figures they’d be better off dead. At most, Facebook, YouTube or Twitter remove a post or suspend their account.
But over the past several years, Germany has forged another path, criminally prosecuting people for online hate speech.
German authorities have brought charges for insults, threats and harassment. The police have raided homes, confiscated electronics and brought people in for questioning. Judges have enforced fines worth thousands of dollars each and, in some cases, sent offenders to jail. The threat of prosecution, they believe, will not eradicate hate online, but push some of the worst behavior back into the shadows.
In doing so, they have flipped inside out what, to American ears, it means to protect free speech. The authorities in Germany argue that they are encouraging and defending free speech by providing a space where people can share opinions without fear of being attacked or abused.
Where Online Hate Speech Can Bring the Police to Your Door
Battling far-right extremism, Germany has gone further than any other Western democracy to prosecute individuals for what they say online, testing the limits of free speech on the internet.
......
“We are making it clear that anyone who posts hate messages must expect the police to be at the front door afterward,” Holger Münch, the head of the Federal Criminal Police Office, said after the March raids.
Hate speech, extremism, misogyny and misinformation are well-known byproducts of the internet. But the people behind the most toxic online behavior typically avoid any personal major real-world consequences. Most Western democracies like the United States have avoided policing the internet because of free speech rights, leaving a sea of slurs, targeted harassment and tweets telling public figures they’d be better off dead. At most, Facebook, YouTube or Twitter remove a post or suspend their account.
But over the past several years, Germany has forged another path, criminally prosecuting people for online hate speech.
German authorities have brought charges for insults, threats and harassment. The police have raided homes, confiscated electronics and brought people in for questioning. Judges have enforced fines worth thousands of dollars each and, in some cases, sent offenders to jail. The threat of prosecution, they believe, will not eradicate hate online, but push some of the worst behavior back into the shadows.
In doing so, they have flipped inside out what, to American ears, it means to protect free speech. The authorities in Germany argue that they are encouraging and defending free speech by providing a space where people can share opinions without fear of being attacked or abused.
恭喜意大利人民 虽然不是很看好这位女性总理能有多大出色表现 又是一例人民在经济下行 物价飙升 难民成灾情况下 选上来上来收拾烂摊子的
去看了圈zhihu和ytb
一边说这位是墨索里尼的根正苗黑继承人精神法西斯cos者将来难成大事
一边是欧盟女主席一脸破防抨击意大利首位极右翼法西斯女性领导人上台是开倒车
难道人民的选择和其他右翼道路是不是在他们眼里已经不存在了? 民主政体哪来那么多法西斯? 不支持左翼进步就不算是正常人了?
蠢到家了
去看了圈zhihu和ytb
一边说这位是墨索里尼的根正苗黑继承人精神法西斯cos者将来难成大事
一边是欧盟女主席一脸破防抨击意大利首位极右翼法西斯女性领导人上台是开倒车
难道人民的选择和其他右翼道路是不是在他们眼里已经不存在了? 民主政体哪来那么多法西斯? 不支持左翼进步就不算是正常人了?
欧盟委员会主席冯德莱恩前几日已对意大利发出警告，暗示会祭出像对波兰和匈牙利那样的惩罚措施，这番言论在意大利国内引发了轩然大波。
蠢到家了
Germany’s Chancellor Has ‘a Lot’ for Ukraine. But No Battle Tanks
NEW YORK — Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany gets right to the point when asked why his country will not send battle tanks to Ukraine: It is “a very dangerous war,” he said.
Ukraine has made gains recently against Russia, which invaded the country in February, and has been asking the West for reinforcements. But Germany has declined to lead the way in sending that aid.
“We are supporting Ukraine,” Mr. Scholz said last week in an hourlong interview with The New York Times. “We are doing it in a way that is not escalating to where it is becoming a war between Russia and NATO because this would be a catastrophe.”
......
Asked why Germany will still not spend 2 percent of gross domestic product on military spending in the next couple of years, as Mr. Scholz has said it would, he snapped: “Asking that question is not serious, to be very honest.”
Germany’s chancellor is not the only one hesitating to send sophisticated weapons systems to Ukraine.
Calls by Mr. Zelensky for American long-range guided missiles have so far gone unanswered, too.
NEW YORK — Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany gets right to the point when asked why his country will not send battle tanks to Ukraine: It is “a very dangerous war,” he said.
Ukraine has made gains recently against Russia, which invaded the country in February, and has been asking the West for reinforcements. But Germany has declined to lead the way in sending that aid.
“We are supporting Ukraine,” Mr. Scholz said last week in an hourlong interview with The New York Times. “We are doing it in a way that is not escalating to where it is becoming a war between Russia and NATO because this would be a catastrophe.”
......
Asked why Germany will still not spend 2 percent of gross domestic product on military spending in the next couple of years, as Mr. Scholz has said it would, he snapped: “Asking that question is not serious, to be very honest.”
Germany’s chancellor is not the only one hesitating to send sophisticated weapons systems to Ukraine.
Calls by Mr. Zelensky for American long-range guided missiles have so far gone unanswered, too.
How Seriously Should We Take Putin’s Nuclear Threat in Ukraine?
By Ross Douthat
......
The world-historical recklessness of such a decision would carry its own potentially regime-destroying consequences — the possibility of escalation to outright war with NATO, the total abandonment of Russia by its remaining quasi-friends and the full collapse of its economy. It’s a reasonable-enough bet that even facing defeat, he or his regime would blink.
But you don’t bet on nuclear war the way you bet on other outcomes. Suppose there were “only” a 20 percent chance of the nuclear taboo being busted: That would still be a terrifying rather than a reassuring figure. And while the West’s Ukraine hawks, who are currently inclined to play down the nuclear risk, have gotten a lot right about this war, one of the key things they’ve been right about is that the aging Putin is more a reckless, ideologically motivated gambler than a cold-eyed statesman. What does that imply for nuclear peril? Nothing good.
So I return to a point I’ve made throughout this war. American support for Ukraine is good and necessary, but there is a point at which Ukraine’s goals and America’s interests may diverge, and the combination of Ukrainian military breakthroughs and Russian nuclear threats brings that point closer than before — the point where the Ukrainians want to go all the way, and we require negotiation and restraint.
By Ross Douthat
......
The world-historical recklessness of such a decision would carry its own potentially regime-destroying consequences — the possibility of escalation to outright war with NATO, the total abandonment of Russia by its remaining quasi-friends and the full collapse of its economy. It’s a reasonable-enough bet that even facing defeat, he or his regime would blink.
But you don’t bet on nuclear war the way you bet on other outcomes. Suppose there were “only” a 20 percent chance of the nuclear taboo being busted: That would still be a terrifying rather than a reassuring figure. And while the West’s Ukraine hawks, who are currently inclined to play down the nuclear risk, have gotten a lot right about this war, one of the key things they’ve been right about is that the aging Putin is more a reckless, ideologically motivated gambler than a cold-eyed statesman. What does that imply for nuclear peril? Nothing good.
So I return to a point I’ve made throughout this war. American support for Ukraine is good and necessary, but there is a point at which Ukraine’s goals and America’s interests may diverge, and the combination of Ukrainian military breakthroughs and Russian nuclear threats brings that point closer than before — the point where the Ukrainians want to go all the way, and we require negotiation and restraint.
py幼稚的没完了是吧
Philippe Lemoine @phl43
I find it hard to believe that someone can blow up pipelines in the North Sea without being detected, so if Russia is responsible we'll probably have evidence soon and if we don't then it will mean that it was probably someone else.
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1574756122283630592
Philippe Lemoine @phl43
Whoever blew up those pipelines, if people start sabotaging critical infrastructure in areas so remote from the conflict, this will get very ugly.
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1574775314269478914
Philippe Lemoine @phl43
The fundamental problem of the war is that everyone thinks the other side is not as retarded as them and everyone is wrong.
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1574775314269478914
I find it hard to believe that someone can blow up pipelines in the North Sea without being detected, so if Russia is responsible we'll probably have evidence soon and if we don't then it will mean that it was probably someone else.
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1574756122283630592
Philippe Lemoine @phl43
Whoever blew up those pipelines, if people start sabotaging critical infrastructure in areas so remote from the conflict, this will get very ugly.
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1574775314269478914
Philippe Lemoine @phl43
The fundamental problem of the war is that everyone thinks the other side is not as retarded as them and everyone is wrong.
https://twitter.com/phl43/status/1574775314269478914
The Greek Analyst @GreekAnalyst
Erdogan says the quiet part loud, i.e. that Turkey has every intention to make its threats vs Greece a reality, giving little regard to EU/US pressures. I still remember a bunch of pundits criticizing Greece for improving its defense capabilities. Wonder where they all are now.
https://twitter.com/GreekAnalyst/status/1574705523584385025
Erdogan says the quiet part loud, i.e. that Turkey has every intention to make its threats vs Greece a reality, giving little regard to EU/US pressures. I still remember a bunch of pundits criticizing Greece for improving its defense capabilities. Wonder where they all are now.
Republic of Türkiye Directorate of Communications @Communications
Organisation du gouvernement - Turquie
President @RTErdogan:
"Do you think the support (to Greece) from the US and Europe will save you? It will not. You simply spin your wheels; it does nothing else."
https://twitter.com/GreekAnalyst/status/1574705523584385025
‘Not fooling anyone’: Jaishankar on US support for Pakistan F-16s
External affairs minister S Jaishaknar urged Washington to reflect on its ties with Islamabad and the price it has paid for a relationship that has served neither side well
The US is not “fooling anyone” by saying that the support for Pakistan Air Force’s F-16s was meant for counterterrorism, India’s external affairs minister S Jaishankar said on Sunday, urging Washington to reflect on its ties with Islamabad and the price it has paid for a relationship that has served neither side well.
At the same time, the minister also called the change in the India-US relationship the biggest transformation of his professional career and hailed the growing ties between the two countries in the domain of security and defence.
Speaking at a community event soon after arriving in Washington DC on Sunday for the final leg of his US visit, Jaishankar said the US’s relationship with Pakistan, including the military relationship, was not recent.
“Very honestly, it is a relationship that has ended up serving neither Pakistan well nor serving American interests well. It is really for the US to reflect what the merits of the relationship [are] and what they get by keeping it sort of continuing,” said Jaishankar, who wrapped up his engagements at the United Nations in New York over the weekend.
The US recently provided Pakistan with a $450 million package for what Pentagon termed as “F-16 Case for sustainment and related equipment”. Responding to a question on this support, the minister firmly rejected the reason being given for the assistance.
“At the end of the day, for someone to say I am doing it because it is for counterterrorism, when you are talking of an aircraft of the capability of a F-16, everyone knows where they are deployed, what is its use, what is its capability. You are not fooling anybody by saying these things,” he said in a pointed critique of the grounds for the assistance.
Jaishankar said that while countries make their choices based on their own interests, if he was to speak to an American policymaker, he would ask him to reflect on larger ties with Pakistan.
“If I were to speak to an American policymaker, I would make a case saying look, forget about us for a moment, what you are doing is not good for you. Reflect on the history, look at the many years of this relationship and where it has taken you, and the cost you have had to pay for it.”
External affairs minister S Jaishaknar urged Washington to reflect on its ties with Islamabad and the price it has paid for a relationship that has served neither side well
The US is not “fooling anyone” by saying that the support for Pakistan Air Force’s F-16s was meant for counterterrorism, India’s external affairs minister S Jaishankar said on Sunday, urging Washington to reflect on its ties with Islamabad and the price it has paid for a relationship that has served neither side well.
At the same time, the minister also called the change in the India-US relationship the biggest transformation of his professional career and hailed the growing ties between the two countries in the domain of security and defence.
Speaking at a community event soon after arriving in Washington DC on Sunday for the final leg of his US visit, Jaishankar said the US’s relationship with Pakistan, including the military relationship, was not recent.
“Very honestly, it is a relationship that has ended up serving neither Pakistan well nor serving American interests well. It is really for the US to reflect what the merits of the relationship [are] and what they get by keeping it sort of continuing,” said Jaishankar, who wrapped up his engagements at the United Nations in New York over the weekend.
The US recently provided Pakistan with a $450 million package for what Pentagon termed as “F-16 Case for sustainment and related equipment”. Responding to a question on this support, the minister firmly rejected the reason being given for the assistance.
“At the end of the day, for someone to say I am doing it because it is for counterterrorism, when you are talking of an aircraft of the capability of a F-16, everyone knows where they are deployed, what is its use, what is its capability. You are not fooling anybody by saying these things,” he said in a pointed critique of the grounds for the assistance.
Jaishankar said that while countries make their choices based on their own interests, if he was to speak to an American policymaker, he would ask him to reflect on larger ties with Pakistan.
“If I were to speak to an American policymaker, I would make a case saying look, forget about us for a moment, what you are doing is not good for you. Reflect on the history, look at the many years of this relationship and where it has taken you, and the cost you have had to pay for it.”
Putin’s regime may fall – but what would come next?
...If this continues, then a coup against Putin will become a real possibility. This would not necessarily be violent, and might indeed not appear publicly at all. Instead, a delegation of establishment figures would go to Putin and tell him that, to preserve the regime itself, it is necessary for him (and a few other top figures implicated in military failure, such as the defence minister, Sergei Shoigu) to step down, in return for guarantees of immunity from prosecution and security of property. Something not unlike this happened when Yeltsin handed over power to Putin in 1999.
Members of the Russian establishment who took such a step would be running grave risks: for themselves personally if the move failed, but also for the Russian establishment and Russia itself, if a change of leadership led to a split in the elite, political chaos and a radical weakening of the central state.
They would therefore most probably need some assurance that if Putin could be removed, the west would be prepared to offer his successor a deal that would allow the new government to claim some measure of Russian success. Otherwise, ruling over a weakened state and military, and faced with what Russians would view as western demands for unconditional surrender, the new government would assume the catastrophic burden of Weimar German democracy after the first world war, permanently branded as the regime of surrender and national humiliation.
Looking at this prospect, a successor to Putin would very likely blame him personally for everything that has gone wrong in Ukraine, while answering growing calls by Russian hardliners to declare complete national mobilisation and greatly intensify the war. This could spread the war beyond Ukraine’s borders. If we wish to avoid this prospect, there is still time for the west to take up Putin’s implicit offer of talks; but not much time.
...If this continues, then a coup against Putin will become a real possibility. This would not necessarily be violent, and might indeed not appear publicly at all. Instead, a delegation of establishment figures would go to Putin and tell him that, to preserve the regime itself, it is necessary for him (and a few other top figures implicated in military failure, such as the defence minister, Sergei Shoigu) to step down, in return for guarantees of immunity from prosecution and security of property. Something not unlike this happened when Yeltsin handed over power to Putin in 1999.
Members of the Russian establishment who took such a step would be running grave risks: for themselves personally if the move failed, but also for the Russian establishment and Russia itself, if a change of leadership led to a split in the elite, political chaos and a radical weakening of the central state.
They would therefore most probably need some assurance that if Putin could be removed, the west would be prepared to offer his successor a deal that would allow the new government to claim some measure of Russian success. Otherwise, ruling over a weakened state and military, and faced with what Russians would view as western demands for unconditional surrender, the new government would assume the catastrophic burden of Weimar German democracy after the first world war, permanently branded as the regime of surrender and national humiliation.
Looking at this prospect, a successor to Putin would very likely blame him personally for everything that has gone wrong in Ukraine, while answering growing calls by Russian hardliners to declare complete national mobilisation and greatly intensify the war. This could spread the war beyond Ukraine’s borders. If we wish to avoid this prospect, there is still time for the west to take up Putin’s implicit offer of talks; but not much time.
这则新闻给我意想不到的安慰和怀旧感，当我们熟悉的世界慢慢崩解的时候，有一群美国人继续活在好莱坞英雄片的情节中，承担着拯救人类的使命：
Move over, Bruce Willis: NASA crashed into an asteroid to test planetary defense
Nuclear bombs. That's the go-to answer for incoming space objects like asteroids and comets, as far as Hollywood is concerned. Movies like Deep Impact and Armageddon rely on nukes, delivered by stars like Bruce Willis, to save the world and deliver the drama.
But planetary defense experts say in reality, if astronomers spotted a dangerous incoming space rock, the safest and best answer might be something more subtle, like simply pushing it off course by ramming it with a small spacecraft.
That's just what NASA did on Monday evening, when a spacecraft headed straight into an asteroid, obliterating itself.
In images streamed as the impact neared, the egg-shaped asteroid, called Dimorphos, grew in size from a blip on screen to have its full rocky surface come quickly into focus before the signal went dead as the craft hit, right on target.
Events transpired exactly as engineers had planned, they said, with nothing going wrong. "As far as we can tell our first planetary defense test was a success," said Elena Adams, the mission systems engineer, who added that scientists looked on with "both terror and joy" as the spacecraft neared its final destination.
The impact was the culmination of NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), a 7-year and more than $300 million effort which launched a space vehicle in November of 2021 to perform humanity's first ever test of planetary defense technology.
It will be about two months, scientists said, before they will be able to determine if the impact was enough to drive the asteroid slightly off course.
Move over, Bruce Willis: NASA crashed into an asteroid to test planetary defense
Nuclear bombs. That's the go-to answer for incoming space objects like asteroids and comets, as far as Hollywood is concerned. Movies like Deep Impact and Armageddon rely on nukes, delivered by stars like Bruce Willis, to save the world and deliver the drama.
But planetary defense experts say in reality, if astronomers spotted a dangerous incoming space rock, the safest and best answer might be something more subtle, like simply pushing it off course by ramming it with a small spacecraft.
That's just what NASA did on Monday evening, when a spacecraft headed straight into an asteroid, obliterating itself.
In images streamed as the impact neared, the egg-shaped asteroid, called Dimorphos, grew in size from a blip on screen to have its full rocky surface come quickly into focus before the signal went dead as the craft hit, right on target.
Events transpired exactly as engineers had planned, they said, with nothing going wrong. "As far as we can tell our first planetary defense test was a success," said Elena Adams, the mission systems engineer, who added that scientists looked on with "both terror and joy" as the spacecraft neared its final destination.
The impact was the culmination of NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), a 7-year and more than $300 million effort which launched a space vehicle in November of 2021 to perform humanity's first ever test of planetary defense technology.
It will be about two months, scientists said, before they will be able to determine if the impact was enough to drive the asteroid slightly off course.
>>Philippe Lemoine @phl43I find it hard to believe t...
'Academic Philosophers' like this bachelor are not fit for the coming new era. Whether they DO think on anything, or not.
This pipeline is NOT remote at all, if he can really grasp what's going on during this war from its very beginning. On the contrary, the Nord Steam is always a direct participant (as a component) in the staging and developing of the Ukraine War.
----------------------
一个在读的哲学博士能蠢到这种程度，真是让我庆幸能够因自己的选择得免于这种学术瘟疫。
----------------------
至于希腊，当然「自古以来就是奥斯曼帝国的一部分」。
不管外来的头衔、身份、社会和经济工具是些什么，都改变不了帝国和苏丹的天命。
正常人对这些事情发展是不觉得奇怪的。但现代社会并不是正常人的乐土，而是工具人的天堂。
A: 加害者与受害者都有道德错误
B: 加害者对受害者的伤害在道德上可以接受
从A推不出B，你认为从A可以推出B并因此主张不应该指出A，是你有问题，不是指出A的人有问题。
B: 加害者对受害者的伤害在道德上可以接受
从A推不出B，你认为从A可以推出B并因此主张不应该指出A，是你有问题，不是指出A的人有问题。
亲美人士关于斯诺登的看法取决于对这个问题的权衡：美国情治系统的国际影响力的削弱，和该系统对国内自由、公民权利在当下和未来的威胁，哪一个是更大的恶？
换一个问法：有两个值得追求的目标 - (1) 维持美国主导的国际体系，(2) 维持内政和民生的良好运转 - 可以在多大程度上容忍为了(1)而败坏(2)？
换一个问法：有两个值得追求的目标 - (1) 维持美国主导的国际体系，(2) 维持内政和民生的良好运转 - 可以在多大程度上容忍为了(1)而败坏(2)？
土耳其和希腊之间的敌对态势是中亚一系列武装冲突的镜像。是大大减弱版的镜像，不过也的确预示了当前战争不但会削弱Russkiy Mir, 也会削弱Pax Americana.
Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher
Tory MP on economic turmoil: 'Politically this is extinction level for us. It's all over.
'Half of my colleagues realise it, the Q is just how quickly will the other half catch up.'
MP predicts party may remove Truss, but doubts whether that would prevent an electoral rout
On the other side of the fence, a Truss-backing MP insists 'I'm not panicking'
The MP says they've received only a handful of emails from angry/concerned constituents, vs hundreds over Barnard Castle
The MP also accuses media of hysteria, adding BBC coverage is 'completely OTT'
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1575092698306215936
Tory MP on economic turmoil: 'Politically this is extinction level for us. It's all over.
'Half of my colleagues realise it, the Q is just how quickly will the other half catch up.'
MP predicts party may remove Truss, but doubts whether that would prevent an electoral rout
On the other side of the fence, a Truss-backing MP insists 'I'm not panicking'
The MP says they've received only a handful of emails from angry/concerned constituents, vs hundreds over Barnard Castle
The MP also accuses media of hysteria, adding BBC coverage is 'completely OTT'
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1575092698306215936
Javier Blas @JavierBlas
Very good illustration (from TotalEnergies) of what lies ahead for the global LNG market as, almost overnight, Europe demands an extra 1/4 of the market. Demand will run well ahead of supply until 2025-26, and high prices will be needed ration, with Asian poor nations priced out
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1575124108538527746
Ralph Schoellhammer @Raphfel
Europe is starving the developing world of much needed energy because we are too ideologically stubborn to tap into our own deposits.
It's not just stupid policy, it's deeply immoral and will do massive damage in Asia and Africa.
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1575153079795826689
Very good illustration (from TotalEnergies) of what lies ahead for the global LNG market as, almost overnight, Europe demands an extra 1/4 of the market. Demand will run well ahead of supply until 2025-26, and high prices will be needed ration, with Asian poor nations priced out
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1575124108538527746
Ralph Schoellhammer @Raphfel
Europe is starving the developing world of much needed energy because we are too ideologically stubborn to tap into our own deposits.
It's not just stupid policy, it's deeply immoral and will do massive damage in Asia and Africa.
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1575153079795826689
New poll signals Americans are growing tired of support for Ukraine without diplomacy as the war against Russia drags on
A new poll suggests that many Americans are growing weary as the US government continues its support of Ukraine in its war with Russia and want to see diplomatic efforts to end the war if aid is to continue.
According to a poll conducted by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and Data for Progress, 57% of likely voters strongly or somewhat support the US pursuing diplomatic negotiations as soon as possible to end the war in Ukraine, even if it requires Ukraine making compromises with Russia. Just 32% of respondents were strongly or somewhat opposed to this.
And nearly half of the respondents (47%) said they only support the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine if the US is involved in ongoing diplomacy to end the war, while 41% said they support the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine whether the US is involved in ongoing diplomacy or not.
The Biden administration and Congress need to do more diplomatically to help end the war, according to 49% of likely voters, while 37% said they have done enough in this regard, the poll showed.
"Americans recognize what many in Washington don't: Russia's war in Ukraine is more likely to end at the negotiating table than on the battlefield. And there is a brewing skepticism of Washington's approach to this war, which has been heavy on tough talk and military aid, but light on diplomatic strategy and engagement," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute.
"'As long as it takes' isn't a strategy, it's a recipe for years of disastrous and destructive war — conflict that will likely bring us no closer to the goal of securing a prosperous, independent Ukraine. US leaders need to show their work: explain to the American people how you plan to use your considerable diplomatic leverage to bring this war to an end," Parsi added.
The poll found close to half of likely US voters (48%) somewhat or strongly oppose the US providing aid to Ukraine at current levels if long-term global economic hardship, including in the US, occurs. Meanwhile, the poll showed that only four-in-10 Americans somewhat or strongly support the US providing aid to Ukraine at current levels if this occurs.
The poll also found 58% of Americans somewhat somewhat or strongly oppose the US providing aid to Ukraine at current levels if there are higher gas prices and a higher cost of goods in the US, while just 33% somewhat or strongly support continuing aid if this occurs.
A majority of poll respondents (57%) also said that they think the Russia-Ukraine war will end with a negotiated peace settlement between the two countries, while 61% said they believe the war has impacted them financially on some level.
A new poll suggests that many Americans are growing weary as the US government continues its support of Ukraine in its war with Russia and want to see diplomatic efforts to end the war if aid is to continue.
According to a poll conducted by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and Data for Progress, 57% of likely voters strongly or somewhat support the US pursuing diplomatic negotiations as soon as possible to end the war in Ukraine, even if it requires Ukraine making compromises with Russia. Just 32% of respondents were strongly or somewhat opposed to this.
And nearly half of the respondents (47%) said they only support the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine if the US is involved in ongoing diplomacy to end the war, while 41% said they support the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine whether the US is involved in ongoing diplomacy or not.
The Biden administration and Congress need to do more diplomatically to help end the war, according to 49% of likely voters, while 37% said they have done enough in this regard, the poll showed.
"Americans recognize what many in Washington don't: Russia's war in Ukraine is more likely to end at the negotiating table than on the battlefield. And there is a brewing skepticism of Washington's approach to this war, which has been heavy on tough talk and military aid, but light on diplomatic strategy and engagement," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute.
"'As long as it takes' isn't a strategy, it's a recipe for years of disastrous and destructive war — conflict that will likely bring us no closer to the goal of securing a prosperous, independent Ukraine. US leaders need to show their work: explain to the American people how you plan to use your considerable diplomatic leverage to bring this war to an end," Parsi added.
The poll found close to half of likely US voters (48%) somewhat or strongly oppose the US providing aid to Ukraine at current levels if long-term global economic hardship, including in the US, occurs. Meanwhile, the poll showed that only four-in-10 Americans somewhat or strongly support the US providing aid to Ukraine at current levels if this occurs.
The poll also found 58% of Americans somewhat somewhat or strongly oppose the US providing aid to Ukraine at current levels if there are higher gas prices and a higher cost of goods in the US, while just 33% somewhat or strongly support continuing aid if this occurs.
A majority of poll respondents (57%) also said that they think the Russia-Ukraine war will end with a negotiated peace settlement between the two countries, while 61% said they believe the war has impacted them financially on some level.
Poland Seeks to Mend Ties With Hungary After Rift Over Ukraine
Poland will attempt rapprochement with Hungary after a falling out earlier this year over the war in Ukraine, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said.
Morawiecki told government-friendly Sieci weekly on Monday that he’s going to “work out a formula in which, by clearly naming the discrepancies, respecting the sensitivity of Ukrainian friends” Poland will be able to conduct “joint activities with Hungary in those areas where we share values and interests.”
The attempt to turn the page on strained relations between the two eastern members of the European Union comes as both nations remain shut out of accessing funds from the EU’s post-pandemic aid over alleged democratic backsliding.
Hungary and Poland have for year gave each other cover as they defied the EU over the rule of law. But the steady friendship soured after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban refused to make a clean break with President Vladimir Putin following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February.
Poland’s government, meantime, has been among the most hard-line in the EU against Russia, prompting the country’s de facto leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski in April to say that the special relationship with Hungary can’t continue “under the current terms.”
In recent weeks, the government in Warsaw has taken an increasingly confrontational stance against the bloc and repeatedly accused the opposition of colluding with Germany to undermine its chances in next year’s general election.
Poland will attempt rapprochement with Hungary after a falling out earlier this year over the war in Ukraine, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said.
Morawiecki told government-friendly Sieci weekly on Monday that he’s going to “work out a formula in which, by clearly naming the discrepancies, respecting the sensitivity of Ukrainian friends” Poland will be able to conduct “joint activities with Hungary in those areas where we share values and interests.”
The attempt to turn the page on strained relations between the two eastern members of the European Union comes as both nations remain shut out of accessing funds from the EU’s post-pandemic aid over alleged democratic backsliding.
Hungary and Poland have for year gave each other cover as they defied the EU over the rule of law. But the steady friendship soured after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban refused to make a clean break with President Vladimir Putin following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February.
Poland’s government, meantime, has been among the most hard-line in the EU against Russia, prompting the country’s de facto leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski in April to say that the special relationship with Hungary can’t continue “under the current terms.”
In recent weeks, the government in Warsaw has taken an increasingly confrontational stance against the bloc and repeatedly accused the opposition of colluding with Germany to undermine its chances in next year’s general election.
Biden Thinks Non-Nuclear Threats Will Stop Putin. His Military Doesn't
The United States would "respond forcefully" to any Russian nuclear strike, President Biden said—but there's a divide between his administration and some of his military advisers over the role of American nuclear weapons and the most effective way to deter Vladimir Putin, knowledgeable sources tell Newsweek.
"It's the closest we've been to the use of nuclear weapons in over 50 years," says one civilian working at the Omaha, Nebraska-based Strategic Command. "But I'm not so sure that we are communicating the right thing to deter Putin."
The nuclear planner and two other senior officers who spoke to Newsweek say that President Biden favors non-nuclear options over nuclear ones, should Russia cross the nuclear threshold. The officials don't disagree with that view, and none of them advocate any use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike. But to deter Putin from using nuclear weapons in the first place, the officers say, the United States needs to talk the nuclear talk—and not be held back by the fear of having to walk the walk.
"We're in uncharted territory," says a senior intelligence officer. "Threatening to respond forcefully and creating catastrophic consequences for Russia [without] suggesting nuclear war: Is that strong enough to deter Putin? And is it really clear? I'm not so sure."
Because Biden and his top national security advisers can't conceive of pressing the nuclear button short of a full-scale attack on the United States, the White House is focusing too much—in its planning and its messaging—on what it considers to be "usable" capabilities, the military officers say. The non-nuclear options include military and non-military measures, including the total economic isolation of Russia.
"We have to ponder whether other [non-nuclear] threats are powerful enough to deter Putin," says a former bomber pilot who is now a Washington-based Pentagon officer.
The United States would "respond forcefully" to any Russian nuclear strike, President Biden said—but there's a divide between his administration and some of his military advisers over the role of American nuclear weapons and the most effective way to deter Vladimir Putin, knowledgeable sources tell Newsweek.
"It's the closest we've been to the use of nuclear weapons in over 50 years," says one civilian working at the Omaha, Nebraska-based Strategic Command. "But I'm not so sure that we are communicating the right thing to deter Putin."
The nuclear planner and two other senior officers who spoke to Newsweek say that President Biden favors non-nuclear options over nuclear ones, should Russia cross the nuclear threshold. The officials don't disagree with that view, and none of them advocate any use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike. But to deter Putin from using nuclear weapons in the first place, the officers say, the United States needs to talk the nuclear talk—and not be held back by the fear of having to walk the walk.
"We're in uncharted territory," says a senior intelligence officer. "Threatening to respond forcefully and creating catastrophic consequences for Russia [without] suggesting nuclear war: Is that strong enough to deter Putin? And is it really clear? I'm not so sure."
Because Biden and his top national security advisers can't conceive of pressing the nuclear button short of a full-scale attack on the United States, the White House is focusing too much—in its planning and its messaging—on what it considers to be "usable" capabilities, the military officers say. The non-nuclear options include military and non-military measures, including the total economic isolation of Russia.
"We have to ponder whether other [non-nuclear] threats are powerful enough to deter Putin," says a former bomber pilot who is now a Washington-based Pentagon officer.
Daniel DePetris @DanDePetris
The U.S. mission in Iraq:
1. Keep fighting an ISIS territorial caliphate that doesn’t exist anymore.
2. Shoot down Iranian drones that wouldn’t have to be shot down if U.S. forces weren’t in Iraq.
https://twitter.com/DanDePetris/status/1575282079809634307
The U.S. mission in Iraq:
1. Keep fighting an ISIS territorial caliphate that doesn’t exist anymore.
2. Shoot down Iranian drones that wouldn’t have to be shot down if U.S. forces weren’t in Iraq.
CNN Politics @CNNPolitics
US scrambles F-15 jet to shoot down Iranian drone that appeared to threaten US forces in Iraq
https://twitter.com/DanDePetris/status/1575282079809634307
Ralph Schoellhammer @Raphfel
The question is no longer if there will be double-digit inflation, but how high those digits are going to go.
You cannot subsidize your way out of an energy supply shortage.
Every cent of those €200bn should be put towards primary energy production and acquisition.
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1575448022200246272
Ralph Schoellhammer @Raphfel
A reason why Western democracies are in crisis is the fact that most people are taking common sense positions on almost everything including energy, abortion, and LGBTQ+ while it is the small percentage of politicians, celebrities, and academics that take the most radical stances
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1575392688983121921
The question is no longer if there will be double-digit inflation, but how high those digits are going to go.
You cannot subsidize your way out of an energy supply shortage.
Every cent of those €200bn should be put towards primary energy production and acquisition.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas
According to @Handelsblatt, the German government is likely to announce as soon as today a price cap for household and business gas prices (the price "brake", in German political-speak), at a total cost of as much as €200 billion (or ~5% of the GDP)
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1575448022200246272
Ralph Schoellhammer @Raphfel
A reason why Western democracies are in crisis is the fact that most people are taking common sense positions on almost everything including energy, abortion, and LGBTQ+ while it is the small percentage of politicians, celebrities, and academics that take the most radical stances
Gray Connolly @GrayConnolly
Australian support for domestic civil Nuclear Power: 61% support or should consider versus 27% opposed ... It is the common sense, reliable, zero emissions, solution for Australia's future energy needs
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1575392688983121921
虽然知道Tories基本上选谁都是继续自杀，不过场面这么壮观还是稍稍出乎意料：
Henry Zeffman @hzeffman
Earlier I plugged these numbers into the Electoral Calculus predictor. It said the Conservatives would be left with *two seats*
Both are in Scotland so I think it's safe to say... zero seats
Of course it would seem utterly impossible for those numbers to hold to an election tho
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1575526100591169543
Britain Elects @BritainElects
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 54% (+9)
CON: 21% (-7)
LDEM: 7% (-2)
GRN: 6% (-1)
via @YouGov, 28 - 29 Sep
Chgs. w/ 25 Sep
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1575522731101245440
Henry Zeffman @hzeffman
Earlier I plugged these numbers into the Electoral Calculus predictor. It said the Conservatives would be left with *two seats*
Both are in Scotland so I think it's safe to say... zero seats
Of course it would seem utterly impossible for those numbers to hold to an election tho
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1575526100591169543
Britain Elects @BritainElects
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 54% (+9)
CON: 21% (-7)
LDEM: 7% (-2)
GRN: 6% (-1)
via @YouGov, 28 - 29 Sep
Chgs. w/ 25 Sep
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1575522731101245440
欧洲在能源上严重依赖俄罗斯、防务上全面仰仗美国都并非必须，说到底是失去了主宰自身命运的意愿。求死的意志在整片大陆的下意识里弥漫。力推LGBT、大规模接纳移民也是唯求速死之意志的显现。
今年的hurricane ian有点猛啊 晚上断了好一阵网
The U.S. and Europe are running out of weapons to send to Ukraine
In the U.S. weapons industry, the normal production level for artillery rounds for the 155 millimeter howitzer — a long-range heavy artillery weapon currently used on the battlefields of Ukraine — is about 30,000 rounds per year in peacetime.
The Ukrainian soldiers fighting invading Russian forces go through that amount in roughly two weeks.
That’s according to Dave Des Roches, an associate professor and senior military fellow at the U.S. National Defense University. And he’s worried.
“I’m greatly concerned. Unless we have new production, which takes months to ramp up, we’re not going to have the ability to supply the Ukrainians,” Des Roches told CNBC.
Europe is running low, too. “The military stocks of most [European NATO] member states have been, I wouldn’t say exhausted, but depleted in a high proportion, because we have been providing a lot of capacity to the Ukrainians,” Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, said earlier this month.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg held a special meeting of the alliance’s arms directors on Tuesday to discuss ways to refill member nations’ weapons stockpiles.
Military analysts point to a root issue: Western nations have been producing arms at much smaller volumes during peacetime, with governments opting to slim down very expensive manufacturing and only producing weapons as needed. Some of the weapons that are running low are no longer being produced, and highly skilled labor and experience are required for their production — things that have been in short supply across the U.S. manufacturing sector for years.
......
“There are a number of systems where I think the Department of Defense has reached the levels where it’s not willing to provide more of that particular system to Ukraine,” said Mark Cancian, a former U.S. Marine Corps colonel and a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
That’s because “the United States needs to maintain stockpiles to support war plans,” Cancian said. “For some munitions, the driving war plan would be a conflict with China over Taiwan or in the South China Sea; for others, particularly ground systems, the driving war plan would be North Korea or Europe.”
In the U.S. weapons industry, the normal production level for artillery rounds for the 155 millimeter howitzer — a long-range heavy artillery weapon currently used on the battlefields of Ukraine — is about 30,000 rounds per year in peacetime.
The Ukrainian soldiers fighting invading Russian forces go through that amount in roughly two weeks.
That’s according to Dave Des Roches, an associate professor and senior military fellow at the U.S. National Defense University. And he’s worried.
“I’m greatly concerned. Unless we have new production, which takes months to ramp up, we’re not going to have the ability to supply the Ukrainians,” Des Roches told CNBC.
Europe is running low, too. “The military stocks of most [European NATO] member states have been, I wouldn’t say exhausted, but depleted in a high proportion, because we have been providing a lot of capacity to the Ukrainians,” Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, said earlier this month.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg held a special meeting of the alliance’s arms directors on Tuesday to discuss ways to refill member nations’ weapons stockpiles.
Military analysts point to a root issue: Western nations have been producing arms at much smaller volumes during peacetime, with governments opting to slim down very expensive manufacturing and only producing weapons as needed. Some of the weapons that are running low are no longer being produced, and highly skilled labor and experience are required for their production — things that have been in short supply across the U.S. manufacturing sector for years.
......
“There are a number of systems where I think the Department of Defense has reached the levels where it’s not willing to provide more of that particular system to Ukraine,” said Mark Cancian, a former U.S. Marine Corps colonel and a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
That’s because “the United States needs to maintain stockpiles to support war plans,” Cancian said. “For some munitions, the driving war plan would be a conflict with China over Taiwan or in the South China Sea; for others, particularly ground systems, the driving war plan would be North Korea or Europe.”
Ukraine: Risk of Russian tactical nuclear strike is 'very high'
Ukraine faces a “very high” risk that Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons, officials say, as Moscow scrambles to reverse recent battlefield losses.
A recent Ukrainian counteroffensive recovered large swaths of territory in eastern Ukraine, forcing Russian President Vladimir Putin to order a “partial mobilization” to find more troops to throw into the fight. That decision is an apparent acknowledgment of a manpower problem that might make the use of nuclear weapons more attractive in the Kremlin.
“They will likely target places along the front lines with lots of [army] personnel and equipment, key command centers, and critical infrastructure,” Ukrainian deputy intelligence chief Vadym Skibitsky told the Guardian. “In order to stop them, we need not just more anti-aircraft systems, but anti-rocket systems. But everything will depend on how the situation develops on the battlefield.”
The latest Ukrainian assessment lends some credence to the Western anxiety that Ukrainian success could result in making a desperate effort to salvage victory out of a defeat, although Ukrainian officials have signaled to their allies that they won’t be daunted by a nuclear strike.
......
Part of the fear stems from the widespread perception that Russia has adopted a doctrine known as “escalate to de-escalate” — to wit, that they could use relatively small nuclear weapons to destroy an opposing force and thus win a war. In the face of such an assault, a conventional counterattack elsewhere in Russia might almost seem like a way to shelter Ukrainian forces from a Russian nuclear strike.
“It's much, much more difficult to use nukes on your own soil,” the senior European official said. “Escalate to deescalate is meant [for] when they are conquering something, not defending.”
......
“NATO should respond decisively and firmly,” Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau told NBC on Sunday. “To the best of our knowledge, Putin is threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil, not to attack NATO ... which means that NATO should respond in a conventional way. But the response should be devastating. And I suppose this is the clear message that the NATO alliance is sending to Russia right now.”
Ukraine faces a “very high” risk that Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons, officials say, as Moscow scrambles to reverse recent battlefield losses.
A recent Ukrainian counteroffensive recovered large swaths of territory in eastern Ukraine, forcing Russian President Vladimir Putin to order a “partial mobilization” to find more troops to throw into the fight. That decision is an apparent acknowledgment of a manpower problem that might make the use of nuclear weapons more attractive in the Kremlin.
“They will likely target places along the front lines with lots of [army] personnel and equipment, key command centers, and critical infrastructure,” Ukrainian deputy intelligence chief Vadym Skibitsky told the Guardian. “In order to stop them, we need not just more anti-aircraft systems, but anti-rocket systems. But everything will depend on how the situation develops on the battlefield.”
The latest Ukrainian assessment lends some credence to the Western anxiety that Ukrainian success could result in making a desperate effort to salvage victory out of a defeat, although Ukrainian officials have signaled to their allies that they won’t be daunted by a nuclear strike.
......
Part of the fear stems from the widespread perception that Russia has adopted a doctrine known as “escalate to de-escalate” — to wit, that they could use relatively small nuclear weapons to destroy an opposing force and thus win a war. In the face of such an assault, a conventional counterattack elsewhere in Russia might almost seem like a way to shelter Ukrainian forces from a Russian nuclear strike.
“It's much, much more difficult to use nukes on your own soil,” the senior European official said. “Escalate to deescalate is meant [for] when they are conquering something, not defending.”
......
“NATO should respond decisively and firmly,” Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau told NBC on Sunday. “To the best of our knowledge, Putin is threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil, not to attack NATO ... which means that NATO should respond in a conventional way. But the response should be devastating. And I suppose this is the clear message that the NATO alliance is sending to Russia right now.”
US Army falls 25% short of recruiting goal
The Army fell about 15,000 soldiers — or 25% — short of its recruitment goal this year, officials confirmed Friday, despite a frantic effort to make up the widely expected gap in a year when all the military services struggled in a tight jobs market to find young people willing and fit to enlist.
While the Army was the only service that didn't meet its target, all of the others had to dig deep into their pools of delayed entry applicants, which will put them behind as they begin the next recruiting year on Saturday.
The worsening problem stirs debate about whether America’s fighting force should be restructured or reduced in size if the services can't recruit enough, and could also put added pressure on the National Guard and Reserve to help meet mission requirements.
According to officials, the Marine Corps, which usually goes into each fiscal year with as much as 50% of its recruiting goal already locked in, has only a bit more than 30%. And the Air Force and the Navy will only have about 10% of their goals as they start the new fiscal year. The Air Force usually has about 25%. Officials spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details on the recruiting totals that have not yet been released.
"In the Army’s most challenging recruiting year since the start of the all-volunteer force, we will only achieve 75% of our fiscal year 22 recruiting goal," Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said in a statement to The Associated Press. "The Army will maintain its readiness and meet all our national security requirements. If recruiting challenges persist, we will draw on the Guard and Reserve to augment active-duty forces, and may need to trim our force structure."
Officials said the Army brought in about 45,000 soldiers during the fiscal year that ended Friday. The goal was 60,000.
The Air Force, meanwhile, was able to pull enough recruits from its delayed entry pool to exactly met its goal to bring in 26,151 recruits this year.
The Army fell about 15,000 soldiers — or 25% — short of its recruitment goal this year, officials confirmed Friday, despite a frantic effort to make up the widely expected gap in a year when all the military services struggled in a tight jobs market to find young people willing and fit to enlist.
While the Army was the only service that didn't meet its target, all of the others had to dig deep into their pools of delayed entry applicants, which will put them behind as they begin the next recruiting year on Saturday.
The worsening problem stirs debate about whether America’s fighting force should be restructured or reduced in size if the services can't recruit enough, and could also put added pressure on the National Guard and Reserve to help meet mission requirements.
According to officials, the Marine Corps, which usually goes into each fiscal year with as much as 50% of its recruiting goal already locked in, has only a bit more than 30%. And the Air Force and the Navy will only have about 10% of their goals as they start the new fiscal year. The Air Force usually has about 25%. Officials spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details on the recruiting totals that have not yet been released.
"In the Army’s most challenging recruiting year since the start of the all-volunteer force, we will only achieve 75% of our fiscal year 22 recruiting goal," Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said in a statement to The Associated Press. "The Army will maintain its readiness and meet all our national security requirements. If recruiting challenges persist, we will draw on the Guard and Reserve to augment active-duty forces, and may need to trim our force structure."
Officials said the Army brought in about 45,000 soldiers during the fiscal year that ended Friday. The goal was 60,000.
The Air Force, meanwhile, was able to pull enough recruits from its delayed entry pool to exactly met its goal to bring in 26,151 recruits this year.
Boris Ryvkin @BRyvkin
FDR told Churchill near the end of WWII in Europe to prepare for almost all U.S. troops to come home as soon as possible and not expect a protracted, massive post-war presence. Eisenhower wanted the Europeans to take more of a lead in NATO to offset the U.S. by 1960.
Over time, and accelerated after the end of the Cold War, the majority of America’s NATO European allies grew dependent and comfortable with the idea that they could not manage regional security crises completely or largely on their own w/o U.S. direct involvement and leadership.
This was vividly seen during the Yugoslav Wars and now comes into greater relief with Ukraine. Once formidable NATO militaries like the Bundeswehr - W. Germany was expected to be a reliable, key NATO member when admitted in 1955 - were gutted. Has gotten worse, not better.
https://twitter.com/BRyvkin/status/1576203004549599232
FDR told Churchill near the end of WWII in Europe to prepare for almost all U.S. troops to come home as soon as possible and not expect a protracted, massive post-war presence. Eisenhower wanted the Europeans to take more of a lead in NATO to offset the U.S. by 1960.
Elbridge Colby @ElbridgeColby
It's really an indictment of post-Cold War policy on both sides of the Atlantic that Europe is unable or unwilling to take a much larger, more leading role in a huge security crisis *in Europe*. I really don't think this is what post-WWII leaders on either side hoped for.
Over time, and accelerated after the end of the Cold War, the majority of America’s NATO European allies grew dependent and comfortable with the idea that they could not manage regional security crises completely or largely on their own w/o U.S. direct involvement and leadership.
This was vividly seen during the Yugoslav Wars and now comes into greater relief with Ukraine. Once formidable NATO militaries like the Bundeswehr - W. Germany was expected to be a reliable, key NATO member when admitted in 1955 - were gutted. Has gotten worse, not better.
https://twitter.com/BRyvkin/status/1576203004549599232
Branko Milanovic @BrankoMilan
It would be useful even re the current conflict btw NATO and Russia for people to read how NATO-Serbia war really ended, and not to make fantastic statements based on what they think might have happened.
The war ended with negotiations, and military (Kumanovo) agreement, that affirmed Serbian territorial integrity, but limited its sovereignty over Kosovo. It allowed NATO troops plus a Russian contingent to move to Kosovo, and required all Serbian troops to leave it.
This compromise aspect allowed Milosevic to claim that the war was not entirely lost, to pass the agreement through the Parliament (with one part of the opposition supporting the agreement & another against it), and thus to *remain* in power.
https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1576334942292037632
Branko Milanovic @BrankoMilan
And however unhappy I was at a time with an outcome that left Milosevic in power for foreseeable future, I was glad that it prevented a huge carnage that either a threatened NATO full-scale bombing of cities or ground war would entail.
https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1576338264197251075
It would be useful even re the current conflict btw NATO and Russia for people to read how NATO-Serbia war really ended, and not to make fantastic statements based on what they think might have happened.
The war ended with negotiations, and military (Kumanovo) agreement, that affirmed Serbian territorial integrity, but limited its sovereignty over Kosovo. It allowed NATO troops plus a Russian contingent to move to Kosovo, and required all Serbian troops to leave it.
This compromise aspect allowed Milosevic to claim that the war was not entirely lost, to pass the agreement through the Parliament (with one part of the opposition supporting the agreement & another against it), and thus to *remain* in power.
https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1576334942292037632
Branko Milanovic @BrankoMilan
And however unhappy I was at a time with an outcome that left Milosevic in power for foreseeable future, I was glad that it prevented a huge carnage that either a threatened NATO full-scale bombing of cities or ground war would entail.
Branko Milanovic @BrankoMilan
It would be useful even re the current conflict btw NATO and Russia for people to read how NATO-Serbia war really ended, and not to make fantastic statements based on what they think might have happened.
https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1576338264197251075
Europe Elects @EuropeElects
Italy: Ipsos analysis shows that centre-left alliance (S&D|RE|LEFT|G/EFA|NI) and M5S (NI) are strongest among younger voters, while the right-wing alliance (ECR|ID|EPP) is strongest among all age groups except 18-34 years old.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1575126603964768264
Europe Elects @EuropeElects
Italy: Ipsos analysis shows that the Centre-left alliance amd A/IV are strongest among Entrepreneurs, Freelancers, Executives, Office workers and Teachers
Right-wing alliance and M5S are strongest among Traders, Artisans, Self-employed workers and Workers
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1575140291572531200
Italy: Ipsos analysis shows that centre-left alliance (S&D|RE|LEFT|G/EFA|NI) and M5S (NI) are strongest among younger voters, while the right-wing alliance (ECR|ID|EPP) is strongest among all age groups except 18-34 years old.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1575126603964768264
Europe Elects @EuropeElects
Italy: Ipsos analysis shows that the Centre-left alliance amd A/IV are strongest among Entrepreneurs, Freelancers, Executives, Office workers and Teachers
Right-wing alliance and M5S are strongest among Traders, Artisans, Self-employed workers and Workers
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1575140291572531200
Liz Truss faces Cabinet revolt on plans to loosen immigration rules for foreign workers - including the need to speak English - to help flailing economy as ministers warn the overall number of arrivals must continue to fall
Senior figures including Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg are believed to be unhappy at a possible relaxing of rules governing the shortage occupations list.
These are jobs where there is a particular lack of home-grown people to fill posts and the cap on numbers limiting arrivals to 30,000 to 40,000 people could be raised.
Other relaxations could include watering down the requirement to speak English to a certain proficiency, the Telegraph reported.
The numbers cap of 30,000 - 40,000 people could also be raised.
Ms Braverman s said to have joined Mr Rees-Mogg and International Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch in insisting net migration must fall, as per a Tory 2019 manifesto pledge.
A source told the Daily Telegraph: 'The Home Secretary does not believe that reducing net migration needs to mean we go to lower growth. You can achieve both. You can solve the economic bottlenecks that need to have higher skills but at the same time bring down aggregate migration.'
Senior figures including Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg are believed to be unhappy at a possible relaxing of rules governing the shortage occupations list.
These are jobs where there is a particular lack of home-grown people to fill posts and the cap on numbers limiting arrivals to 30,000 to 40,000 people could be raised.
Other relaxations could include watering down the requirement to speak English to a certain proficiency, the Telegraph reported.
The numbers cap of 30,000 - 40,000 people could also be raised.
Ms Braverman s said to have joined Mr Rees-Mogg and International Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch in insisting net migration must fall, as per a Tory 2019 manifesto pledge.
A source told the Daily Telegraph: 'The Home Secretary does not believe that reducing net migration needs to mean we go to lower growth. You can achieve both. You can solve the economic bottlenecks that need to have higher skills but at the same time bring down aggregate migration.'
85% of the world's population will live in the grip of stringent austerity measures by next year
Despite millions of people being pushed into hunger and poverty, 143 countries — including 94 developing nations — are implementing policy measures that undermine governments’ capacity to provide healthcare, education and social protection.
A new report titled “End Austerity: A global report on budget cuts and harmful social reforms” shows that 85 percent of the world’s population will live in the grip of austerity measures by 2023. This trend is likely to continue until at least 2025, when 75 percent of the global population (129 countries) could still be living under these conditions.
Austerity measures include scaling down social protection programs for women, children, the elderly and other vulnerable people, leaving only a small safety net for a fraction of the poorest. They also include cutting or capping the wages and number of teachers and healthcare workers, eliminating subsidies, privatizing or commercializing public services such as energy, water and public transportation, and reducing pensions and workers’ rights.
Civil society organizations from across the world are launching the #EndAusterity campaign today to fight back against the wave of austerity that is sweeping across the world, supercharging inequality and compounding the effects of the cost-of-living crisis and climate breakdown.
Despite millions of people being pushed into hunger and poverty, 143 countries — including 94 developing nations — are implementing policy measures that undermine governments’ capacity to provide healthcare, education and social protection.
A new report titled “End Austerity: A global report on budget cuts and harmful social reforms” shows that 85 percent of the world’s population will live in the grip of austerity measures by 2023. This trend is likely to continue until at least 2025, when 75 percent of the global population (129 countries) could still be living under these conditions.
Austerity measures include scaling down social protection programs for women, children, the elderly and other vulnerable people, leaving only a small safety net for a fraction of the poorest. They also include cutting or capping the wages and number of teachers and healthcare workers, eliminating subsidies, privatizing or commercializing public services such as energy, water and public transportation, and reducing pensions and workers’ rights.
Civil society organizations from across the world are launching the #EndAusterity campaign today to fight back against the wave of austerity that is sweeping across the world, supercharging inequality and compounding the effects of the cost-of-living crisis and climate breakdown.
Europe Failed Its First Winter Energy Savings Test
If Europe was a school student, last week it sat its first exam in Energy Savings 101. It failed. And that doesn’t bode well for much tougher tests to come in January.
Despite strong imports of liquefied natural gas to replace Russian shipments, Europe needs to reduce gas consumption — by a lot — if it’s going to make it through the winter. Extra supply won’t be enough. Conservation is absolutely paramount.
The exact amount varies from country to country, but on average, the European Commission has suggested a 10%-15% demand reduction. Germany and a few other nations, which in the past relied on Russian gas significantly, need to cut consumption even more, by as much as 20%.
......
Household and small businesses’ gas demand, which in Germany account for about 40% of the country’s consumption, is highly seasonal, with the bulk concentrated during roughly 25 weeks of the heating season, from around Oct. 15 to around March 15. Until now, we didn’t know how households would react, although the assumption was that public messaging about the need to save energy, coupled with higher retail prices, would discourage consumption.
The reality? As the first autumnal cold snap hit the continent, German households and small firms, commonly known as the private sector, increased their gas demand 14.5% above the five-year average. Klaus Muller, the German official in charge of monitoring the gas network, called the figures “sobering.”
......
In the last four weeks, European governments have intervened to cap utility bills, curbing the price impact, but they haven’t redoubled their public messaging on conservation. Families and small businesses were previously hearing “prices are going to be high and you need to save gas.” Now, they are hearing “the government is capping your bill, so rejoice.” That’s the wrong memo.
If Europe was a school student, last week it sat its first exam in Energy Savings 101. It failed. And that doesn’t bode well for much tougher tests to come in January.
Despite strong imports of liquefied natural gas to replace Russian shipments, Europe needs to reduce gas consumption — by a lot — if it’s going to make it through the winter. Extra supply won’t be enough. Conservation is absolutely paramount.
The exact amount varies from country to country, but on average, the European Commission has suggested a 10%-15% demand reduction. Germany and a few other nations, which in the past relied on Russian gas significantly, need to cut consumption even more, by as much as 20%.
......
Household and small businesses’ gas demand, which in Germany account for about 40% of the country’s consumption, is highly seasonal, with the bulk concentrated during roughly 25 weeks of the heating season, from around Oct. 15 to around March 15. Until now, we didn’t know how households would react, although the assumption was that public messaging about the need to save energy, coupled with higher retail prices, would discourage consumption.
The reality? As the first autumnal cold snap hit the continent, German households and small firms, commonly known as the private sector, increased their gas demand 14.5% above the five-year average. Klaus Muller, the German official in charge of monitoring the gas network, called the figures “sobering.”
......
In the last four weeks, European governments have intervened to cap utility bills, curbing the price impact, but they haven’t redoubled their public messaging on conservation. Families and small businesses were previously hearing “prices are going to be high and you need to save gas.” Now, they are hearing “the government is capping your bill, so rejoice.” That’s the wrong memo.
Diverse and Divided: A Political Demography of American Elite Students
Eric Kaufmann
Summary:
America’s elite university students are more demographically diverse than the general population, but more politically divided along lines of race, gender, sexuality, and religion.
Minority and female students are far more liberal on campus than in the general population, whereas straight white Christian men are somewhat more conservative on campus than in the general population. Current trends portend a politics in which elite women, minorities, gays, and the nonreligious are more left-leaning while elite whites, males, and Christians remain relatively conservative.
White Christians tend to cluster in red state flagship universities, which are the most politically balanced in the country and have similar shares of liberal and conservative students. Yet many flagship universities in flyover states with conservative reputations actually have more liberal than conservative students.
A quarter of students are LGBT, and there are roughly equal shares of Christian and nonreligious students. LGBT, Nonreligious, and Christians are set to become more important political groups among America’s future leaders.
Liberal arts colleges are the least politically diverse. Many have almost no conservatives, and thus very low viewpoint diversity. But they have high sexual diversity, at nearly 40 percent LGBT.
Ivy League schools average 10-15 percent conservative and 60-75 percent liberal. Across 150 leading schools, there are nearly 2.5 liberals for every conservative.
Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 55-23 margin on campus, and liberals outnumber conservatives 53-21. Elite students are thus two-thirds more Democratic and twice as liberal as the American population.
Among elite students, there is a 15-point gender gap in political ideology and party identification between men and women. This is 3 to 5 times larger than the gender gap in the general population. It is also 2 to 3 times larger than the gender gap among either the 18-25 or college-educated general population. The campus gender gap has grown steadily since 2004.
The university with the highest viewpoint diversity ranking is the University of Arkansas, whose students are 35% conservative, 37% liberal, 36% Republican, and 41% Democratic. The least diverse is Smith College, at 81% liberal, 1% conservative, 78% Democratic, and 2% Republican.
Thirty percent of students and nearly the same share of academic staff in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) fields identify as the furthest left point on a 7-point conservative-liberal scale. For Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) subjects, a smaller share – 20% of students and 10% of staff – identify as far left.
Self-identified Jews make up only 3% of elite students and just 7% of Ivy League students, suggesting a considerable decline since the early 2000s.
Homeschooled and parochial schooled undergraduates are as or more likely to identify as LGBT or non-binary as those from public or private school backgrounds.
Eric Kaufmann
Summary:
America’s elite university students are more demographically diverse than the general population, but more politically divided along lines of race, gender, sexuality, and religion.
Minority and female students are far more liberal on campus than in the general population, whereas straight white Christian men are somewhat more conservative on campus than in the general population. Current trends portend a politics in which elite women, minorities, gays, and the nonreligious are more left-leaning while elite whites, males, and Christians remain relatively conservative.
White Christians tend to cluster in red state flagship universities, which are the most politically balanced in the country and have similar shares of liberal and conservative students. Yet many flagship universities in flyover states with conservative reputations actually have more liberal than conservative students.
A quarter of students are LGBT, and there are roughly equal shares of Christian and nonreligious students. LGBT, Nonreligious, and Christians are set to become more important political groups among America’s future leaders.
Liberal arts colleges are the least politically diverse. Many have almost no conservatives, and thus very low viewpoint diversity. But they have high sexual diversity, at nearly 40 percent LGBT.
Ivy League schools average 10-15 percent conservative and 60-75 percent liberal. Across 150 leading schools, there are nearly 2.5 liberals for every conservative.
Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 55-23 margin on campus, and liberals outnumber conservatives 53-21. Elite students are thus two-thirds more Democratic and twice as liberal as the American population.
Among elite students, there is a 15-point gender gap in political ideology and party identification between men and women. This is 3 to 5 times larger than the gender gap in the general population. It is also 2 to 3 times larger than the gender gap among either the 18-25 or college-educated general population. The campus gender gap has grown steadily since 2004.
The university with the highest viewpoint diversity ranking is the University of Arkansas, whose students are 35% conservative, 37% liberal, 36% Republican, and 41% Democratic. The least diverse is Smith College, at 81% liberal, 1% conservative, 78% Democratic, and 2% Republican.
Thirty percent of students and nearly the same share of academic staff in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) fields identify as the furthest left point on a 7-point conservative-liberal scale. For Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) subjects, a smaller share – 20% of students and 10% of staff – identify as far left.
Self-identified Jews make up only 3% of elite students and just 7% of Ivy League students, suggesting a considerable decline since the early 2000s.
Homeschooled and parochial schooled undergraduates are as or more likely to identify as LGBT or non-binary as those from public or private school backgrounds.
Matt Gaetz @mattgaetz
US House candidate, FL-01
Dear Congress:
On behalf of my fellow Florida Man in grave need of assistance….
Just send us like half of what you sent Ukraine.
Signed,
Your Fellow Americans
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1576705091943661568
Jack Posobiec @JackPosobiec
These people would rather have nuclear war than nuclear power
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1576970937504649217
US House candidate, FL-01
Dear Congress:
On behalf of my fellow Florida Man in grave need of assistance….
Just send us like half of what you sent Ukraine.
Signed,
Your Fellow Americans
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1576705091943661568
Jack Posobiec @JackPosobiec
These people would rather have nuclear war than nuclear power
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1576970937504649217
Bruno Tertrais @BrunoTertrais
[THIS IS NOT A DRILL]
(1/10) As the temperature heats up, a few notes on the nuclear deterrence dimension and first lessons of the Ukraine war.
(2/10) Deterrence at large failed on 2/24. The asymmetry of stakes was probably too great. And sanctions have failed to reestablish deterrence. But nuclear deterrence succeeded (so far): Russia is deterred from attacking us, we are deterred from attacking Russia.
(3/10) Contrary to what most commentators claim, the Kremlin (as opposed to some of its cronies) has so far acted rather responsibly in the nuclear domain. There is little “nuclear saber-rattling” if any.
(4/10) Most of official Russian “threats” have been deterrence reminders, sticking to the stated doctrine. There have apparently been no unusual movements of nuclear forces or changes in nuclear posture.
(5/10) The US and its allies have become better at signaling. They made it clear that private messages have been sent to Russia as per the “catastrophic” consequences of nuclear use in Ukraine.
(6/10) But public signals suggest to Russia that there would be no nuclear response. If so, is it a good thing (it would not be credible to agitate such a threat, and public opinions would panic)... or is it a bad thing (Putin sees us as having no guts)? The jury is out.
(7/10) Putin’s 9/21 speech did contain a reference to the “territorial integrity” of Russia, which some interpreted as a new red line. There are few reasons that it was one... and some reasons that it was not.
(8/10) The imbroglio about the “borders” of the annexed territories comforted a benign view. Overall, the sum of doctrine, speeches, posture, exercises and signaling continue to suggest that the probability of nuclear weapons use remains very low. However…
(9/10) …the 9/30 speech was slightly troubling. As I believe that the next country to use nuclear weapons could claim that it is now the equal of the US, I was annoyed by Putin referring to the 1945 “precedent” and extolling the virtues of a “civilizational” struggle.
(10/10) The war in Ukraine is unfolding as we are remembering the Cuban missile crisis which happened exactly sixty years ago. Its lessons are well-known: leadership and cool-headedness matter; misperceptions and accidents can happen.
Coda in next tweet...
(Coda) Ramzan Kadyrov encourages Moscow to use “tactical” nuclear weapons. This is literally what Fidel Castro was doing in 1962.
https://twitter.com/BrunoTertrais/status/1576956511754276865
[THIS IS NOT A DRILL]
(1/10) As the temperature heats up, a few notes on the nuclear deterrence dimension and first lessons of the Ukraine war.
(2/10) Deterrence at large failed on 2/24. The asymmetry of stakes was probably too great. And sanctions have failed to reestablish deterrence. But nuclear deterrence succeeded (so far): Russia is deterred from attacking us, we are deterred from attacking Russia.
(3/10) Contrary to what most commentators claim, the Kremlin (as opposed to some of its cronies) has so far acted rather responsibly in the nuclear domain. There is little “nuclear saber-rattling” if any.
(4/10) Most of official Russian “threats” have been deterrence reminders, sticking to the stated doctrine. There have apparently been no unusual movements of nuclear forces or changes in nuclear posture.
(5/10) The US and its allies have become better at signaling. They made it clear that private messages have been sent to Russia as per the “catastrophic” consequences of nuclear use in Ukraine.
(6/10) But public signals suggest to Russia that there would be no nuclear response. If so, is it a good thing (it would not be credible to agitate such a threat, and public opinions would panic)... or is it a bad thing (Putin sees us as having no guts)? The jury is out.
(7/10) Putin’s 9/21 speech did contain a reference to the “territorial integrity” of Russia, which some interpreted as a new red line. There are few reasons that it was one... and some reasons that it was not.
(8/10) The imbroglio about the “borders” of the annexed territories comforted a benign view. Overall, the sum of doctrine, speeches, posture, exercises and signaling continue to suggest that the probability of nuclear weapons use remains very low. However…
(9/10) …the 9/30 speech was slightly troubling. As I believe that the next country to use nuclear weapons could claim that it is now the equal of the US, I was annoyed by Putin referring to the 1945 “precedent” and extolling the virtues of a “civilizational” struggle.
(10/10) The war in Ukraine is unfolding as we are remembering the Cuban missile crisis which happened exactly sixty years ago. Its lessons are well-known: leadership and cool-headedness matter; misperceptions and accidents can happen.
Coda in next tweet...
(Coda) Ramzan Kadyrov encourages Moscow to use “tactical” nuclear weapons. This is literally what Fidel Castro was doing in 1962.
https://twitter.com/BrunoTertrais/status/1576956511754276865
Christopher F. Rufo @realchrisrufo
BREAKING: The American Medical Association is asking Big Tech and the Department of Justice to censor, deplatform, investigate, and prosecute journalists who question the orthodoxy of radical gender surgeries for minors, arguing that public criticism is "disinformation."
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1577029634042253313
Christopher F. Rufo @realchrisrufo
The four stages of radical gender surgeries for minors:
–It's not happening.
–It's good that it's happening.
–It's empowering when we say it's happening, but disinformation when you say it's happening.
–The F.B.I. should put you in prison for quoting us saying it's happening.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1577047943651020800
BREAKING: The American Medical Association is asking Big Tech and the Department of Justice to censor, deplatform, investigate, and prosecute journalists who question the orthodoxy of radical gender surgeries for minors, arguing that public criticism is "disinformation."
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1577029634042253313
Christopher F. Rufo @realchrisrufo
The four stages of radical gender surgeries for minors:
–It's not happening.
–It's good that it's happening.
–It's empowering when we say it's happening, but disinformation when you say it's happening.
–The F.B.I. should put you in prison for quoting us saying it's happening.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1577047943651020800
US is overreaching in Ukraine
...Every administration since the Truman presidency inherits the assets of global influence. Most cannot resist the impulse to spend it. Few spend it wisely. The Biden administration is squandering it out of arrogance and panic. If Putin falls from office or, as so many of his critics do, falls from a high window or down several flights of stairs, the new Russian leader will also be a nationalist playing energy politics. Ukraine will continue to be on Russia’s doorstep. And NATO’s border will be doubly indefensible because it has now doubled with the accession of Finland.
As of this week, Congress will have sent $65 billion to Ukraine. Russia continues to control most of southern and eastern Ukraine, and Putin very much remains in power. He threatens to use nuclear weapons if Russian soil is attacked and is busy expanding his definition of Russian soil by holding referendums, the prelude to annexation, in occupied Ukrainian territory. Rather than revitalize NATO and the EU, the war has become a stress test that is breaking them apart.
Biden and Putin are playing chicken over Ukraine. The player who will blink first is Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany. Winter is coming. The European benchmark price for gas rose from around 66 euros per megawatt hour in January to nearly 300 euros pmw in late August. It is now around 200 euros pmw and rising. Germany’s federal energy regulator has stepped up plans to ration the supply this winter. The French prime minister has told companies to reduce usage by 10% or face rationing.
Biden’s economic warfare might not have beaten Russia, but it’s driving America’s European allies into a recession. It’s not doing much for Americans, either. The dollar gets almightier by the day as the tired, poor, and huddled masses of foreign investors seek a safe haven for their pounds, euros, and yen. Prices of imports rise with it. Meanwhile, rising energy prices have boosted Russia’s energy export earnings by 38% this year. Russian oil exports have risen by 12% despite six rounds of economic sanctions. The roots of Europe’s energy failure lie close to home in green sentimentalism and, in Germany’s case, the corruption of its political and business leaders by Russian cash. That will only make it more necessary for elected leaders to blame the U.S. when the lights go out.
The U.S. is fighting a war on the other side of Europe that it cannot win, and the Europeans don’t want a war at all. This is the very definition of overreach. It is exactly what George Kennan, the architect of Cold War containment, warned against when he called the Clinton administration’s expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders a “tragic mistake.” The Biden administration’s strategy is compounding that mistake. It is not just eroding America’s credibility. It is accelerating the decline of the American-led global system.
...Every administration since the Truman presidency inherits the assets of global influence. Most cannot resist the impulse to spend it. Few spend it wisely. The Biden administration is squandering it out of arrogance and panic. If Putin falls from office or, as so many of his critics do, falls from a high window or down several flights of stairs, the new Russian leader will also be a nationalist playing energy politics. Ukraine will continue to be on Russia’s doorstep. And NATO’s border will be doubly indefensible because it has now doubled with the accession of Finland.
As of this week, Congress will have sent $65 billion to Ukraine. Russia continues to control most of southern and eastern Ukraine, and Putin very much remains in power. He threatens to use nuclear weapons if Russian soil is attacked and is busy expanding his definition of Russian soil by holding referendums, the prelude to annexation, in occupied Ukrainian territory. Rather than revitalize NATO and the EU, the war has become a stress test that is breaking them apart.
Biden and Putin are playing chicken over Ukraine. The player who will blink first is Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany. Winter is coming. The European benchmark price for gas rose from around 66 euros per megawatt hour in January to nearly 300 euros pmw in late August. It is now around 200 euros pmw and rising. Germany’s federal energy regulator has stepped up plans to ration the supply this winter. The French prime minister has told companies to reduce usage by 10% or face rationing.
Biden’s economic warfare might not have beaten Russia, but it’s driving America’s European allies into a recession. It’s not doing much for Americans, either. The dollar gets almightier by the day as the tired, poor, and huddled masses of foreign investors seek a safe haven for their pounds, euros, and yen. Prices of imports rise with it. Meanwhile, rising energy prices have boosted Russia’s energy export earnings by 38% this year. Russian oil exports have risen by 12% despite six rounds of economic sanctions. The roots of Europe’s energy failure lie close to home in green sentimentalism and, in Germany’s case, the corruption of its political and business leaders by Russian cash. That will only make it more necessary for elected leaders to blame the U.S. when the lights go out.
The U.S. is fighting a war on the other side of Europe that it cannot win, and the Europeans don’t want a war at all. This is the very definition of overreach. It is exactly what George Kennan, the architect of Cold War containment, warned against when he called the Clinton administration’s expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders a “tragic mistake.” The Biden administration’s strategy is compounding that mistake. It is not just eroding America’s credibility. It is accelerating the decline of the American-led global system.
U.S. Said to Plan New Limits on China’s A.I. and Supercomputing Firms
The Biden administration is expected to announce new measures to restrict Chinese companies from accessing technologies that enable high-performance computing, according to several people familiar with the matter, the latest in a series of moves aimed at hobbling Beijing’s ambitions to craft next-generation weapons and automate large-scale surveillance systems.
The measures, which could be announced as soon as this week, would be some of the most significant steps taken by the Biden administration to cut off China’s access to advanced semiconductor technology. They would build on a Trump-era rule that struck a blow to the Chinese telecom giant Huawei by prohibiting companies around the world from sending it products made with the use of American technology, machinery or software.
A number of Chinese firms, government research labs and other entities are expected to face restrictions similar to Huawei, according to two people with knowledge of the plans. In effect, any firm that uses American-made technologies would be blocked from selling to the Chinese entities that are targeted by the administration. It’s not yet clear which Chinese firms and labs would be impacted.
The Biden administration is expected to announce new measures to restrict Chinese companies from accessing technologies that enable high-performance computing, according to several people familiar with the matter, the latest in a series of moves aimed at hobbling Beijing’s ambitions to craft next-generation weapons and automate large-scale surveillance systems.
The measures, which could be announced as soon as this week, would be some of the most significant steps taken by the Biden administration to cut off China’s access to advanced semiconductor technology. They would build on a Trump-era rule that struck a blow to the Chinese telecom giant Huawei by prohibiting companies around the world from sending it products made with the use of American technology, machinery or software.
A number of Chinese firms, government research labs and other entities are expected to face restrictions similar to Huawei, according to two people with knowledge of the plans. In effect, any firm that uses American-made technologies would be blocked from selling to the Chinese entities that are targeted by the administration. It’s not yet clear which Chinese firms and labs would be impacted.
普京想借一场战争实现他认定的历史正义，他是错的。你认为可以借这场战争实现你认定的历史正义，比如“对俄罗斯去殖民化”，你也是错的。错在思维方式：用历史正义来指导现实政治，必然轻忽一些貌似不正义、实则值得维持的权力稳态，贸然向即使实现也无法常保的理想状态推进，最终伤及各方。主张大搞reparation的种族活动家就是内政方面的历史正义分子。
与其让民族主义情感遭受重重压抑后以改头换面的形式在不恰当的场合爆发，还不如承认其合理性并在社会中给它留下适当空间。很多自然情感有一个适度的区间，对其过度遏制和过度激励都会危害机体的健康，这里的机体可以是个人也可以是共同体。
>>普京想借一场战争实现他认定的历史正义，他是错的。你认为可以借这场战争实现你认定的历史正义，比如“对俄...
Historicism 已经有无数人批过了，但那不妨碍所谓「历史的规律」、「历史的教训」、「命运的法则」继续主宰现在和将来的许多人，还有许多事。
罗杰·斯克鲁顿所说的问题，在逻辑上无解：绝大多数人无法理解真实，所以最有影响力的永远是谬误。这也和勒庞所说的「群众讨厌真理」基本上一致。既然这种基本趋势不变，那么无数这种人组成的大趋势就必然具备某种 pattern，说与不说，论或不论，该事实不变。
从神话到现实，从说「木马里有一支军队」但绝对没人听的卡珊德拉，到指出各种谬误，结果「不得不喝一杯」的苏格拉底，再到他弟子的弟子，因为「门下教出一个希腊毁灭者」结果自己不得不逃出雅典，以免步上苏格拉底后尘的亚里士多德，这一「永恒的命运主题」不变，也看不到变的可能。
------------------------------
一个「能自主」的人可以真正做的选择，就是「自己要不要用上」这种基本情况，为了自己的任何兴趣和目的。
千万别奢望自己可以「改变它」，那就像是站在水塘里，却想要没有水塘一样，陷入自我的逻辑矛盾。
>>普京想借一场战争实现他认定的历史正义，他是错的。你认为可以借这场战争实现你认定的历史正义，比如“对俄...
理论的确是这样的。但当维吾尔人这样的群体完全走入历史，维吾尔这个身份和他们的信仰完全被遗忘，那么很明显对于中共这样的组织在新疆的一切所作所为都将被完全正义化。
现实也是会走入历史的，现在能做的只有防止维吾尔人走入历史，但很显然按照现在的趋势来看他们已经丧失了基本的自卫能力，等待他们的只有走向历史，彻底沦为中华民族形成中不可分割的一份子。难道我们最后给他们的评价只有”他们最终选择了中国”吗？
>>普京想借一场战争实现他认定的历史正义，他是错的。你认为可以借这场战争实现你认定的历史正义，比如“对俄...
我当然了解俄与中国本身的不同，但无论是对民族主义的玩弄，抑或是对于群体采取的残酷灭绝政策直至他们成为历史，这部分是一样的。因此我认为是否应该对俄罗斯去殖民化和是否应该对新疆去殖民化的例子是一样的，如果逻辑上不支持对俄去殖民化，很明显也不应该支持对新疆去殖民化。
>>理论的确是这样的。但当维吾尔人这样的群体完全走入历史，维吾尔这个身份和他们的信仰完全被遗忘，那么很明...
如你这般「外人的评价」不影响他们「自己的选择」。至于如何评价，更是无所谓。
决定命运的并不是嘴上说的任何东西，是每一天，每一分的自身意愿化成的行动。所谓「进入历史」的，是这种实实在在的行动，不是谁谁谁的口水。
这种构成每一分钟，每一小时，每一天，每一年的「行动」，才叫「选择」。
犹太人全世界漫游，五月花的清教徒选择告别旧世界，罗马的天主教徒抛弃地位财富后进入沙漠深处的修道院，当今的阿米什社区选择过一种和现代文明保持距离的生活。那种押上了自己命的行动，就是真正的「选择」，不是嘴上说的任何东西。当初的维吾尔人，只不过不知道自己的「选择」有那种重要性而已。至于谁该责备，谁该背锅，那是另一个领域的问题了。
这种「选择」不是人的「正义」这个词所能够达到的领域。除非谁要因为「自己认准的正义」采取了实际的行动，变成他自己每一天乃至每一小时的生活实践，但就算如此，决定人命运的，变成历史的，都依然是「行动」，不是当时嘴上说得响亮的「正义」。普京的「历史修正主义」批判得再爽，如果他不投入军队，发起战争去实践，谁有多少空鸟他吗？
再举一个小得不值得注意的例子，比如现在已经销声匿迹的 STEM 教徒们，他们嘴上说与不说，我是否再拿他们开涮，对他们自己的「命运选择」以及随之而来的下场，能有多大影响？
另外，如果你觉得「现实会走入历史」，那又凭什么认定「正义」这种基本停留在嘴上的现实不会？
---------------------------------
第二点：逻辑和「选择」并没有什么关系，也不决定那「选择」有什么价值，或者性质。逻辑是存在的法则，但不决定存在与否本身。
针对俄罗斯的「选择」，和针对新疆的「选择」，从主体到客体没有任何逻辑联系，除了「它们是不同对象」之外。既然不同，那凭什么得坚持有「相同待遇」呢？
你的「正义」？
如你自己所言，说不定哪天早上一睁眼，就是（既不重要也无意义）的「历史」了。
---------------------------------
「表达自己」的观点，不是非得靠「否定他人」的观点才能够顺利完成。
值得争论的也不是观点，而是对现实的认知。
「民族存亡」这种价值也好，正义也罢，本身就是「历史」的建构，教育的积累。认同或者不认同，并不是问题，一直停留在别人给你搭好的台子上，从开始舞到结束才是。
当然，以上对事实的认知也包含了我的价值判断。认同或者不认同，都不是问题。
>>如你这般「外人的评价」不影响他们「自己的选择」。至于如何评价，更是无所谓。决定命运的并不是嘴上说的任...
我理解你们这样的观点，阿米什人的确也是通过来到新大陆，做出了维持自身共同体的，从历史进程中来看”正确”的选择。我本身也并没有提到”正义”这个词，正义也是十分虚无缥缈的，但是对于那些压上性命却最终消失在历史长河中的无数个人和群体，抱有一种同情的情感是没有问题的吧？
而我本身类比的原因是，苏联和中国在nation building上是完全如出一辙，唯一的区别在于苏联已经用肉身消灭的方式，通过短短数年的时间，把克里米亚鞑靼人这一群体存在过的所有记录，所有财产，所有的生活痕迹，真正变成了历史。虽然我的同情不会起到任何作用，我的judgement也没有任何价值，但我就是如此感性的人，不希望他们作为一个十分独特且有价值的群体，在短时间内就此消失。
当然如果维吾尔人真正走入历史，中国的nation building真正成功，那自然我能做的也只有叹息了。
>>如你这般「外人的评价」不影响他们「自己的选择」。至于如何评价，更是无所谓。决定命运的并不是嘴上说的任...
事实上正如你所说，流亡维人的确用自身的”行动”拯救自己族群，某种意义上美东的流亡维人，和真正在荷兰搭上帆船的阿米什人是一样的，而没有流亡成功的阿米什人就此也就消失在了瑞士的深山之中。但有什么样的方式能让我们记住那些没有选择跑路，选择抗争但最终失败的欧罗巴阿米什人呢？
能「记住」，乃至「让某些人记住」你所在意之事的，不是历史，也不是历史研究，更不是历史写作。历史的学生理所当然会记住的东西，重点并不在你关心的那些。
人的记忆也需要各种各样的理由，各种各样的成本。
基督教让信徒记住的，是基督和圣徒的「故事」，主题多为救赎、神迹、审判。
两次世界大战让世人记住的，是惨烈的悲剧，当然另一面也有辉煌的胜利。
俄罗斯的衰颓能让俄罗斯人记住，是因为他们的现状在延续那种衰颓，所以普京这个救星成功顺应他们的感性：「还你们一个伟大的俄罗斯！」至于俄罗斯在何时伟大，如何算是伟大，就不是他们需要记得的东西了。一如当今中国人。
古代希腊，让世人在今天也能记住的，是它的悲剧和神话故事，还有艺术作品。而希腊的文明成就，包括写得非常像故事的《伯罗奔尼撒战争》，只有那些努力探究这些事的人能记住。
若目的是想要「让世人记得住」悲剧，需要通俗一点儿的模式，我想到的就是「斯巴达的三百勇士」（这恐怕是几乎没有文化传承可言的斯巴达留下的最大遗产），抑或是「斯巴达克斯的奴隶起义」，再或是「三藏取经」这样的。你的目的，不妨往那些地方取经。
毕竟，维吾尔人之于大中国，一如库尔德人之于新奥斯曼。他们，或者说他们这一类，在西方人和西方价值观之中的意义，其实更取决于西方的现实政治和战略利益需要。就像是苏丹埃尔多安趁着俄攻乌克兰时出兵扫荡库尔德，西方的谁谁谁像你一样嚷着要「记住库尔德人」，或是他们的「高贵呼声」能「让世人听到」了吗？
再如，被普京吓破胆的瑞典和芬兰为了入北约，恭恭敬敬给苏丹送上流亡者作为投名状，最近又恢复对土耳其的武器供应，又有哪个西方的谁谁谁跳出来，为他们的「人权」疾呼，为他们的悲剧发出哀鸣，进而来一场抗争、批判、游行，或是零元购吗？
事实，就这么天天在人的眼前展开，看与不看，对它没有影响。
---------------------------------
正如我先前说的，是否提到某个词，是否做出某种行动，两者间没有什么真正的必然性。
譬如SJW或者Antifa， 只不过是行动时习惯嘴边挂点儿看似正义的东西而已，但他们所为，更接近「随心所欲」，「总之我就是要爽」。
你的「感性」既然是真，那么这个「真」的真正事实基础是什么？
人世的悲剧无穷无尽，更惨烈的多了去，为什么专情于这一种，这一事？
是审美的品味，还是投射自身心境的需要？
抑或是环境的逼迫，渴望确认自己存在的意义，得要从方便确认的身边开始，对「大于自己生活的事情」开始关心，并从「帮助受苦的他人」开始？
这种对意义的认知，是来自你自己认识和判断？还是始于在你心中认定的「有份量的关注」，比如「西方的关心」？
这种 self-inquiry 的答案，只有你自己知道，只对你自己有意义。也是根本没必要向人证明，亦无从讨论的意义。
除非你想骗自己，那另说。
---------------------------------
再重复一遍，有意义的是事实。有真实，才有真的价值。少了真实，再多的价值强调也不过海市蜃楼。
人的记忆也需要各种各样的理由，各种各样的成本。
基督教让信徒记住的，是基督和圣徒的「故事」，主题多为救赎、神迹、审判。
两次世界大战让世人记住的，是惨烈的悲剧，当然另一面也有辉煌的胜利。
俄罗斯的衰颓能让俄罗斯人记住，是因为他们的现状在延续那种衰颓，所以普京这个救星成功顺应他们的感性：「还你们一个伟大的俄罗斯！」至于俄罗斯在何时伟大，如何算是伟大，就不是他们需要记得的东西了。一如当今中国人。
古代希腊，让世人在今天也能记住的，是它的悲剧和神话故事，还有艺术作品。而希腊的文明成就，包括写得非常像故事的《伯罗奔尼撒战争》，只有那些努力探究这些事的人能记住。
若目的是想要「让世人记得住」悲剧，需要通俗一点儿的模式，我想到的就是「斯巴达的三百勇士」（这恐怕是几乎没有文化传承可言的斯巴达留下的最大遗产），抑或是「斯巴达克斯的奴隶起义」，再或是「三藏取经」这样的。你的目的，不妨往那些地方取经。
毕竟，维吾尔人之于大中国，一如库尔德人之于新奥斯曼。他们，或者说他们这一类，在西方人和西方价值观之中的意义，其实更取决于西方的现实政治和战略利益需要。就像是苏丹埃尔多安趁着俄攻乌克兰时出兵扫荡库尔德，西方的谁谁谁像你一样嚷着要「记住库尔德人」，或是他们的「高贵呼声」能「让世人听到」了吗？
再如，被普京吓破胆的瑞典和芬兰为了入北约，恭恭敬敬给苏丹送上流亡者作为投名状，最近又恢复对土耳其的武器供应，又有哪个西方的谁谁谁跳出来，为他们的「人权」疾呼，为他们的悲剧发出哀鸣，进而来一场抗争、批判、游行，或是零元购吗？
事实，就这么天天在人的眼前展开，看与不看，对它没有影响。
---------------------------------
正如我先前说的，是否提到某个词，是否做出某种行动，两者间没有什么真正的必然性。
譬如SJW或者Antifa， 只不过是行动时习惯嘴边挂点儿看似正义的东西而已，但他们所为，更接近「随心所欲」，「总之我就是要爽」。
你的「感性」既然是真，那么这个「真」的真正事实基础是什么？
人世的悲剧无穷无尽，更惨烈的多了去，为什么专情于这一种，这一事？
是审美的品味，还是投射自身心境的需要？
抑或是环境的逼迫，渴望确认自己存在的意义，得要从方便确认的身边开始，对「大于自己生活的事情」开始关心，并从「帮助受苦的他人」开始？
这种对意义的认知，是来自你自己认识和判断？还是始于在你心中认定的「有份量的关注」，比如「西方的关心」？
这种 self-inquiry 的答案，只有你自己知道，只对你自己有意义。也是根本没必要向人证明，亦无从讨论的意义。
除非你想骗自己，那另说。
---------------------------------
再重复一遍，有意义的是事实。有真实，才有真的价值。少了真实，再多的价值强调也不过海市蜃楼。
>>这不巧了吗 我也在那边 那位修正历史修正到欧美区怎么来的都忘了 还想封禁我
某些人修正历史时候别搞的自己一副无辜样子，真要修正”历史“建议先把历史记录删了，当别人看不到category怎么写的是吧？？笑死我了，真以为旧用户丢了一次数据就这么死了
另一方面，回到这个话题。关于历史的看法目前两党双方都有支持”顿巴斯自决权“派的意见人士，反映到你美选民那就更分裂了，从推特投票也能看出来，这个话题跟左右还是两党之争其实关系并没那么大，白左到了”民族自决“ “do u support self determination”这种关键性问题上，照样会支持顿巴斯，而maga壬中对俄强硬派也从来都不是什么少数群体。
当然我个人依然持对马斯克这个观点的反对意见，如果只是把苏联对克里米亚和乌东的强制迁移和屠杀仅仅当作”历史“，那必然我们也在见证维吾尔人逐步变为历史。因为很显然这种通过肉体消灭进行的nation building 对于两个政权是没有区别的。
2019-2020
谢谢帮我下定决心
谢谢帮我下定决心
>>理论的确是这样的。但当维吾尔人这样的群体完全走入历史，维吾尔这个身份和他们的信仰完全被遗忘，那么很明...
我在写那段的时候想到的不是克里米亚、乌东或者Elon Musk. 我针对的是一批欧美策士，他们认为代理战的终极目标是解体俄罗斯，而且他们的理由不是解体俄罗斯对世界有益，而是俄罗斯版图建立在漫长殖民史之上，因此按照正义原则应该分解，不论后果如何。这种以历史正义为核心来指导现实政策的思维方式在我看来十分糟糕。它本质上是隔代讨债，或者隔代复仇，让一群后人为祖先的不义付出牺牲，在伦理上很成问题，而且不义之举与讨还的措施年代相隔越远，问题越大。但我并不否认，历史正义是解决民族争端需要考虑的因素之一。
具体说来，历史正义理论家常常设定一个不义之举发生的始点，然后或者主张(1)把现实倒推到始点之前的状态，或者主张(2)设想在不义之举没有发生的另一条时间线上，我们这条上的受害者今天会是怎样的状况，然后把这条的现实向该状况推近。前一种的例子比如主张东突或者西藏独立后把汉人逐出这些地区，后一种常被美国的种族活动家用来估算种族赔偿的数额。这套想法可以从不同的角度质疑，比如很难设想另一条时间线上复杂的历史因果会导致怎样的现状，比如始点的设置会有争议（种族活动家一般把始点设置为黑奴抵达美国之际，但如果设置为美洲奴隶贸易在非洲起始之时，赔偿多少，甚至赔不赔偿，都是很有意思的问题了）。更大的问题是这种历史正义的彻底实现意味着把一群对原初的不义并无责任的个人——今日的白人和定居西部的汉人——视作历史的附庸、种群的附庸，完全抹杀其主体性。
民族争端最终被摆上台面的时候，除了历史正义原则之外，至少还要考虑两个因素：(1)在可见的未来总体上减轻各方的痛苦——这是一个功利主义的标准。(2)相关各方的民意。有罪者的后代在涉及他们命运的问题上也有权发言并且施加影响。任何意义的正义都要受这两个因素的节制。最后如果能有顾全三个因素的解决方案，恐怕是大多数人不喜欢，盼着人头滚滚、血流成河的人尤其不喜欢的，但大概是最不坏的结局。
说到功利的考量，我觉得不管坚持多么高尚的原则，对后果的盘算都不能抛弃。正是由于这样看上去既怯懦又冷酷的盘算，冷战才没有变成足以毁灭人类的热战。当今不少策士们把盘算后果当成道德过失，不时悄声建议为了原则一亿玉碎，让我深感不安。
Ralph Schoellhammer @Raphfel
In a wonderful recent essay (in German), @AschRonald
makes the strong case that economic performance was one of the few positive elements of German identity post WW2.
With an economic crisis, we will also be looking at a German identity crisis - and we know how that could end.
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1577208534235684865
Ralph Schoellhammer @Raphfel
Replying to @7xoo7x and @AschRonald
I was thinking more Weimar, to be honest. Frankly, it really depends how hard the crisis will be. European democracies are more stable than they have been in the past, but it increasingly looks like we are entering new territory, and I am not sure if they are resilient enough.
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1577210650790891523
In a wonderful recent essay (in German), @AschRonald
makes the strong case that economic performance was one of the few positive elements of German identity post WW2.
With an economic crisis, we will also be looking at a German identity crisis - and we know how that could end.
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1577208534235684865
Ralph Schoellhammer @Raphfel
Replying to @7xoo7x and @AschRonald
I was thinking more Weimar, to be honest. Frankly, it really depends how hard the crisis will be. European democracies are more stable than they have been in the past, but it increasingly looks like we are entering new territory, and I am not sure if they are resilient enough.
https://twitter.com/Raphfel/status/1577210650790891523
Michael Shellenberger @ShellenbergerMD
Leaked White House talking points say an OPEC oil cut would be a “total disaster” & propose threatening OPEC members.
A U.S. official said the White House is “having a spasm & panicking.”
All to avoid more domestic oil production.
https://t.co/PhuMFt7jZY
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1577432166941609984
Anas Alhajji @anasalhajji
3 important points:
1-3 OPEC moved its headquarters from Geneva to Vienna in 1965 because the Swiss government refused to recognize OPEC as an international organization. The Austrian government did. That means representatives of members can travel to Vienna despite sanctions!
2-3 The expected cut by OPEC+ members is not only related to market conditions. OPEC members realize that If the G7 oil price cap on Russian crude is successful or partially successful, it will be used against them. Derailing this effort before it starts becomes important
3-3 Unwittingly, the G7 have forced OPEC+ to stick together and support Russia in its oil trade on one hand, and think about a major production cut on the other, when G7 members insisted on putting a price cap on Russian oil exports.
https://twitter.com/anasalhajji/status/1577514904898134016
Leaked White House talking points say an OPEC oil cut would be a “total disaster” & propose threatening OPEC members.
A U.S. official said the White House is “having a spasm & panicking.”
All to avoid more domestic oil production.
https://t.co/PhuMFt7jZY
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1577432166941609984
Anas Alhajji @anasalhajji
3 important points:
1-3 OPEC moved its headquarters from Geneva to Vienna in 1965 because the Swiss government refused to recognize OPEC as an international organization. The Austrian government did. That means representatives of members can travel to Vienna despite sanctions!
2-3 The expected cut by OPEC+ members is not only related to market conditions. OPEC members realize that If the G7 oil price cap on Russian crude is successful or partially successful, it will be used against them. Derailing this effort before it starts becomes important
3-3 Unwittingly, the G7 have forced OPEC+ to stick together and support Russia in its oil trade on one hand, and think about a major production cut on the other, when G7 members insisted on putting a price cap on Russian oil exports.
https://twitter.com/anasalhajji/status/1577514904898134016
Patrick Porter @PatPorter76
You make nuclear war even more likely, in the here and now or soon, by attacking Russia. That's the simple point these domino arguments barely address. And that is what we must take seriously if we are considering making threats to do so. 1/
Moreover, the reductio doesn't follow. It doesn't require US or others to give in to blackmail in all other circumstances. If Russia considers in future eg a land grab against a Nato country, there are things we can do, forces to deploy, to signal they will have hell to pay. 2/
There is a difference between not responding to nuclear threats with the threat of military retaliation in/over territory neighbouring an adversary amidst a potential rout, and abandoning *all* deterrent threats. 3/
And the best judgement we can make is that, when it comes to Nato core interests & territory, Putin is deterrable. Those hawks who assume he is deterrable even facing potential defeat in the Donbas can hardly claim he suddenly won't be over eg the Baltic states under Art V. 4/
None of this is to say there's zero risk. The world is a messy place & regimes are capable of drawing skewed signals. That being so, it is misplaced to assume confidently that Russia will receive an attack on its forces or territory without retaliating & it escalating. 5/
Imagine the likely conversation in Moscow: "if you allow the west to launch a conventional strike on our forces (or even our soil) with impunity, you are green lighting further attacks. We must hit back." That is more dangerous than blackmail scenarios by an order of magnitude.
https://twitter.com/PatPorter76/status/1577526919104528386
You make nuclear war even more likely, in the here and now or soon, by attacking Russia. That's the simple point these domino arguments barely address. And that is what we must take seriously if we are considering making threats to do so. 1/
Timothy Snyder @TimothyDSnyder
To consider regarding nuclear blackmail: when you give in to it, you empower dictators to do it again, encourage worldwide nuclear proliferation, and make nuclear war much, much more likely.
Moreover, the reductio doesn't follow. It doesn't require US or others to give in to blackmail in all other circumstances. If Russia considers in future eg a land grab against a Nato country, there are things we can do, forces to deploy, to signal they will have hell to pay. 2/
There is a difference between not responding to nuclear threats with the threat of military retaliation in/over territory neighbouring an adversary amidst a potential rout, and abandoning *all* deterrent threats. 3/
And the best judgement we can make is that, when it comes to Nato core interests & territory, Putin is deterrable. Those hawks who assume he is deterrable even facing potential defeat in the Donbas can hardly claim he suddenly won't be over eg the Baltic states under Art V. 4/
None of this is to say there's zero risk. The world is a messy place & regimes are capable of drawing skewed signals. That being so, it is misplaced to assume confidently that Russia will receive an attack on its forces or territory without retaliating & it escalating. 5/
Imagine the likely conversation in Moscow: "if you allow the west to launch a conventional strike on our forces (or even our soil) with impunity, you are green lighting further attacks. We must hit back." That is more dangerous than blackmail scenarios by an order of magnitude.
https://twitter.com/PatPorter76/status/1577526919104528386
禁止登录 • 2022-10-05
管理员: 一只鹿兒
用户: 北美carl
详情: 习禁5b【禁钓鱼令】教唆、怂恿其他用户泄露个人信息 https://pincong.rocks/article/id-38073__item_id-853900#
管理员: 一只鹿兒
用户: 北美carl
详情: 习禁5b【禁钓鱼令】教唆、怂恿其他用户泄露个人信息 https://pincong.rocks/article/id-38073__item_id-853900#
>>禁止登录 • 2022-10-05管理员: 一只鹿兒用户: 北美carl详情: 习禁5b【禁钓鱼令】...
感谢您的好意 但不必为我申诉了 恩怨已久 站方是不会理睬的 还容易得罪他们 没有必要 保重 再次别过各位右人朋友 愿我们在自由没有黑暗的地方相见
>>感谢您的好意 但不必为我申诉了 恩怨已久 站方是不会理睬的 还容易得罪他们 没有必要 保重 再次别过...
是时候把才说过的话重复一遍了：“对历史和现实的法则，千万别以为自己可以‘改变它’，那是一种错觉。”
某些人坚持认定，现实由自己决定，或者由自己相信的那些“至高无上的正义”决定，那是因为没有面对真实的胆量，所以绝对不能自己面对自己的缺陷。
反虚伪胜过重真实的，终成虚伪，恨邪恶胜过守良善的，终成邪恶。自己的执着取代目的及其原则之后，新的“神圣不可侵犯”，或者说“能将一切正当化”，从而“引领众生”的新（神）偶像，就顺利降生了。
命运是自己选的，是每一天，每一分，每一秒的意识和行动所在。
我又忍不住重复一遍，虽然知道说再多次也只能期望自己能力之外的“某种东西”能产生作用。
------------------------------
你的遭遇并不觉得意外，只是没想到居然不是我先啊？大概是认定“不具希望”之后，便干干脆脆彻底无视的态度所带来的，也即是乔治·奥威尔所指出的，所谓“安全的局外人”的位置吧？
但这种“真实的态度”，是没有办法靠迁就或是伪装来维持的，那没有意义，还是一句老话：世界观不能作伪。
近两年前，我就决定将品葱作为自己混汉语圈的最后一站了，因为已经过了还有拓宽活动的意义的时候。没想到如今还能在自己的眼前，亲自见证“世界的划分”以活灵活现的生动形式展开。何其幸运。
前几天，程晓农在新的一期《政经最前线》里说过的话：今后世界的经济全球化将变成双轨，有中国的，和没中国的。
考虑到这个世界从来没有孤立现象的事实状态，加上眼前的见证，现在可以对其观点补上一句：“今后的人类文明的趋向，也将一分为二。”
咱们会属于哪一边，当然是多年前就已经做出过选择了。如今不过是确认而已。
很不幸的是，在 Gab Social 那边的氛围虽然没到这地步，然而也有恶化的迹象。对了， rightdog tv 已经搬到 Gab 去了。因为我们都清楚，reddit 属于哪一边。
而且， Google 是“不太容易”搜到相关内容的，特别是你“不指定站点”，或是有“用其他语言”、“敲的空格多了一个”诸如此类的“不可辨识的错误”的话。其中根本性的“技术性”原因，当然我们也一样清楚 ，无非一颗叫做“阵营”的螺丝。
------------------------------
以前在品葱说过的，一句基本上没什么注意的话，很不幸地又应验了：道路的选择，最终决定阵营的归属。
坚持要相信，“现实由自己做出来”，这本身难道不是一种时时刻刻分分秒秒的选择？ 不是一种认知和思考的先决条件？
从历史上的过去到现在，之所以各种各样的“进步”最后都“殊途同归”，无非就是最简单的逻辑在现实中的体现：既然认知和思考的前提一致，那么包括从各种念头到各种行动，乃至各种“意外”带来的刺激所引发的应激反应，对准的终点就只有那一個。
“活在战场是一种怎样的体验”？
这个最近一段时间的热点问题，若是就精神面的战场而言，我倒是已有最适合装蒜的答案：“大家都有充分的机会亲自经历，亲自总结。”
>>是时候把才说过的话重复一遍了：“对历史和现实的法则，千万别以为自己可以‘改变它’，那是一种错觉。”某...
我也并不意外 这是注定会发生的事情 无论正义与否 每个人生而独立 奉献其价值 坚持其观念 终得其果 也希望能在别的地方见到诸位 祝好
@你喒啊提厄
感谢您的陪伴和庇护 先行离开 希望您老能够理解和原谅我
感谢您的陪伴和庇护 先行离开 希望您老能够理解和原谅我
很多贴着自由派标签的华人配不上他们理想中的社会，因为你从他们的言行举止看得出他们不是建设那种社会的材料。多说无益。
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
We can go to war with Russia OR we can defeat a PRC invasion of Taiwan. We can't do both at the same time or anything close to it.
Advocates of US strikes on Russians are effectively arguing to give up on Taiwan's defense. If that's what they want, they should say so explicitly.
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1577659811881271296
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
You argued for an "overwhelming conventional response" & "defending Ukraine fully." Both of these things, under any kind of realistic assumptions, would be very costly campaigns using up things also required (& hard to quickly replace) for Asia regardless of Russian losses so far
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1577976196125659137
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
The idea that "defending Ukraine fully would allow for focus on Asia" presumes a timely victory in Ukraine. It also presumes China will wait & that we'll have time to regenerate forces in between wars.
These are heroic assumptions. No good strategy would make these bets.
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1577978363360198656
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
This isn't a 6 month problem. Munitions shortfalls alone will take far longer to solve, even without an extra war against Russia.
It'll take years for the Joint Force to be able to fight two major wars in close succession, assuming we choose to regenerate that ability. 1/2
DoD has made clear we can't fight major wars in Europe & Asia at the same time or close to it.
It sounds like you disagree w/ them, but you've offered no evidence to support your argument.
Why are you so confident we can fight Russia and China in close succession? 2/2
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1577983725823983616
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
A key problem w/ liberal internationalism & neoconservatism is both tend toward maximalist policy visions & prescriptions that can only succeed under highly favorable conditions, if at all. This is a key reason why both are ill-suited to today's competitive security environment.
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1577804128419446784
We can go to war with Russia OR we can defeat a PRC invasion of Taiwan. We can't do both at the same time or anything close to it.
Advocates of US strikes on Russians are effectively arguing to give up on Taiwan's defense. If that's what they want, they should say so explicitly.
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1577659811881271296
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
You argued for an "overwhelming conventional response" & "defending Ukraine fully." Both of these things, under any kind of realistic assumptions, would be very costly campaigns using up things also required (& hard to quickly replace) for Asia regardless of Russian losses so far
Dr John Chipman IISS @chipmanj
Much of Russia’s combat power has been destroyed in the last 7 months in Ukraine and Ukraine is successfully conducting counteroffensives that are taking thousands of square miles of territory from Russian control. Defending Ukraine fully would allow for focus on Indo-Pacific.
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1577976196125659137
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
The idea that "defending Ukraine fully would allow for focus on Asia" presumes a timely victory in Ukraine. It also presumes China will wait & that we'll have time to regenerate forces in between wars.
These are heroic assumptions. No good strategy would make these bets.
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1577978363360198656
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
This isn't a 6 month problem. Munitions shortfalls alone will take far longer to solve, even without an extra war against Russia.
It'll take years for the Joint Force to be able to fight two major wars in close succession, assuming we choose to regenerate that ability. 1/2
Dr John Chipman IISS @chipmanj
No, it would not use up an intolerable mount of military resources, nor would it take 'too much time' to be successful, or deny the US an adequate deterrent or fighting posture in Asia. Or do you think China will attack Taiwan in the next six months which no one I know thinks?
DoD has made clear we can't fight major wars in Europe & Asia at the same time or close to it.
It sounds like you disagree w/ them, but you've offered no evidence to support your argument.
Why are you so confident we can fight Russia and China in close succession? 2/2
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1577983725823983616
Alex Velez-Green @Alex_agvg
A key problem w/ liberal internationalism & neoconservatism is both tend toward maximalist policy visions & prescriptions that can only succeed under highly favorable conditions, if at all. This is a key reason why both are ill-suited to today's competitive security environment.
https://twitter.com/Alex_agvg/status/1577804128419446784
Daniel DePetris @DanDePetris
OPEC+ has agreed to cut output by 2 million bpd. Many will finger-wag at Saudi Arabia for acceding to Russia’s request. But ultimately, Riyadh isn’t doing this to help Putin out—the kingdom has gotten used to $90+ oil prices and the huge revenues that come with it.
Remember: Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s economic modernization drive, to which he has tied his legacy, is expensive. He wants to diversify the Saudi economy toward non-oil sectors like banking and tourism. But to do that, he needs a lot of cash. And oil is the cash-cow.
https://twitter.com/DanDePetris/status/1577649840263159813
OPEC+ has agreed to cut output by 2 million bpd. Many will finger-wag at Saudi Arabia for acceding to Russia’s request. But ultimately, Riyadh isn’t doing this to help Putin out—the kingdom has gotten used to $90+ oil prices and the huge revenues that come with it.
Remember: Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s economic modernization drive, to which he has tied his legacy, is expensive. He wants to diversify the Saudi economy toward non-oil sectors like banking and tourism. But to do that, he needs a lot of cash. And oil is the cash-cow.
https://twitter.com/DanDePetris/status/1577649840263159813
US believes elements within Ukraine’s government authorized assassination near Moscow, sources say
Washington (CNN)—The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources briefed on the intelligence told CNN.
The US was not aware of the plan beforehand, according to the sources, and it is still unclear who exactly the US believes signed off on the assassination. It is also not clear whether the US intelligence community believes that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was aware of the plot or authorized it.
But the intelligence finding, first reported by the New York Times, would seem to corroborate elements of the Russian authorities’ findings that the car bombing was “pre-planned.” Russia had accused Ukrainian nationals of being responsible for the attack, which Ukraine had strongly denied in the aftermath of the explosion.
Asked to comment, a Ukrainian defense intelligence official told CNN Wednesday evening following publication of the latest reports that their agency had no new information on Dugina’s death. Shortly after her death, the same official had told CNN that Ukraine had nothing to do with it.
Washington (CNN)—The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources briefed on the intelligence told CNN.
The US was not aware of the plan beforehand, according to the sources, and it is still unclear who exactly the US believes signed off on the assassination. It is also not clear whether the US intelligence community believes that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was aware of the plot or authorized it.
But the intelligence finding, first reported by the New York Times, would seem to corroborate elements of the Russian authorities’ findings that the car bombing was “pre-planned.” Russia had accused Ukrainian nationals of being responsible for the attack, which Ukraine had strongly denied in the aftermath of the explosion.
Asked to comment, a Ukrainian defense intelligence official told CNN Wednesday evening following publication of the latest reports that their agency had no new information on Dugina’s death. Shortly after her death, the same official had told CNN that Ukraine had nothing to do with it.
>>Washington (CNN)—The US intelligence community bel...
美国情报机构不久前透露杀害杜金娜的爆炸案是乌克兰所为、没有美方支持，现在看来目的很明显，就是得知乌方即将在刻赤大桥制造又一起爆炸，提前撇清自己，暗示这类做法不出于美国授意，避免俄美敌意升级。
Leonid ХВ Ragozin @leonidragozin
The three survivors continued arguing about whose fault it was until their orbital station ran out of oxygen.
https://twitter.com/leonidragozin/status/1578486186091630592
David Sacks @DavidSacks
The same foreign policy experts & generals who tell us to disregard Putin’s nuclear threat previously told us that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq, that The Surge was working, nation-building in Afghanistan was working, and on and on. They should have zero credibility.
https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1577684948483702784
The three survivors continued arguing about whose fault it was until their orbital station ran out of oxygen.
Michael McFaul @McFaul
If Putin uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, he will be at fault, not Biden or Zelensky.
https://twitter.com/leonidragozin/status/1578486186091630592
David Sacks @DavidSacks
The same foreign policy experts & generals who tell us to disregard Putin’s nuclear threat previously told us that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq, that The Surge was working, nation-building in Afghanistan was working, and on and on. They should have zero credibility.
https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1577684948483702784
Kanwal Sibal @KanwalSibal
Zelenskyy is now being helped to backtrack but unconvincingly. What does “preemptive ”sanctions mean,esp after several rounds of draconian sanctions on Russia already. “Preemptive kicks” in nuclear context he was evoking can only mean “strikes” as “kick” is physical strike.
https://twitter.com/KanwalSibal/status/1578650617374834688
Kanwal Sibal @KanwalSibal
And in the process expand the conflict with terrible costs to all. Difficult to understand this passion for a military solution to the conflict.
https://twitter.com/KanwalSibal/status/1578736402916732928
Zelenskyy is now being helped to backtrack but unconvincingly. What does “preemptive ”sanctions mean,esp after several rounds of draconian sanctions on Russia already. “Preemptive kicks” in nuclear context he was evoking can only mean “strikes” as “kick” is physical strike.
Theresa Fallon @TheresaAFallon
Putin increases nuclear threat as Iran and North Korea watch closely. Zelensky says Russian officials have begun to "prepare their society" for the possible use of nuclear weapons, but added he does not believe Russia is ready to use them.
https://twitter.com/KanwalSibal/status/1578650617374834688
Kanwal Sibal @KanwalSibal
And in the process expand the conflict with terrible costs to all. Difficult to understand this passion for a military solution to the conflict.
Velina Tchakarova @vtchakarova
Ukraine is successfully expanding its counter offenses in all directions. The destruction of the Crimea bridge creates not only logistical problems but also psychological effects on Russian military and population. The ultimate goal is to induce top-down regime change in Kremlin.
https://twitter.com/KanwalSibal/status/1578736402916732928
Rachel Bovard @rachelbovard
For crying out loud.
“Under existing law, PayPal has the ability as a private company to implement this type of viewpoint-discriminatory policy,” Aaron Terr, a senior program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, explained...”
https://t.co/tz3keMYo4z
We have growing ideological means testing of the financial system - literally the access point to modern capitalism. But it’s fine I guess because it’s not the state doing it. Just the heavily regulated financial entities promoting the agenda of the party in power.
“Banks are private companies, just like your local hair salon” is a clown world argument.
https://twitter.com/rachelbovard/status/1578749724697714688
For crying out loud.
“Under existing law, PayPal has the ability as a private company to implement this type of viewpoint-discriminatory policy,” Aaron Terr, a senior program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, explained...”
https://t.co/tz3keMYo4z
We have growing ideological means testing of the financial system - literally the access point to modern capitalism. But it’s fine I guess because it’s not the state doing it. Just the heavily regulated financial entities promoting the agenda of the party in power.
“Banks are private companies, just like your local hair salon” is a clown world argument.
https://twitter.com/rachelbovard/status/1578749724697714688
New PayPal Policy Lets Company Pull $2,500 From Users’ Accounts If They Promote ‘Misinformation’
A new policy update from PayPal will permit the firm to sanction users who advance purported “misinformation” or present risks to user “wellbeing.”
The financial services company, which has repeatedly deplatformed organizations and individual commentators for their political views, will expand its “existing list of prohibited activities” on November 3. Among the changes are prohibitions on “the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials” that “promote misinformation” or “present a risk to user safety or wellbeing.” Users are also barred from “the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory.”
The company’s current acceptable use policy does not mention such activities. The Daily Wire reached out to PayPal for definitions of the added terms, although no response was received in time for publication.
The policy applies to actions taken using PayPal’s platform.
Deliberations will be made at the “sole discretion” of PayPal and may subject the user to “damages” — including the removal of $2,500 “debited directly from your PayPal account.” The company’s user agreement contains a provision in which account holders acknowledge that the figure is “presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages” due to the administrative cost of tracking violations and damage to the company’s reputation.
“Under existing law, PayPal has the ability as a private company to implement this type of viewpoint-discriminatory policy,” Aaron Terr, a senior program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, explained to The Daily Wire. “Whatever motivation PayPal has for establishing these vague new categories of prohibited expression, they will almost certainly have a severe chilling effect on users’ speech. As is often the case with ill-defined and viewpoint-discriminatory speech codes, those with unpopular or minority viewpoints will likely bear the brunt of these restrictions.”
The move comes days after PayPal canceled three accounts linked to Toby Young, a commentator who runs a nonprofit called Free Speech Union. The organization has defended clients such as actor and comedian Russell Brand, who recently moved his show from YouTube to Rumble in reaction to censorship from the former platform.
A new policy update from PayPal will permit the firm to sanction users who advance purported “misinformation” or present risks to user “wellbeing.”
The financial services company, which has repeatedly deplatformed organizations and individual commentators for their political views, will expand its “existing list of prohibited activities” on November 3. Among the changes are prohibitions on “the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials” that “promote misinformation” or “present a risk to user safety or wellbeing.” Users are also barred from “the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory.”
The company’s current acceptable use policy does not mention such activities. The Daily Wire reached out to PayPal for definitions of the added terms, although no response was received in time for publication.
The policy applies to actions taken using PayPal’s platform.
Deliberations will be made at the “sole discretion” of PayPal and may subject the user to “damages” — including the removal of $2,500 “debited directly from your PayPal account.” The company’s user agreement contains a provision in which account holders acknowledge that the figure is “presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages” due to the administrative cost of tracking violations and damage to the company’s reputation.
“Under existing law, PayPal has the ability as a private company to implement this type of viewpoint-discriminatory policy,” Aaron Terr, a senior program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, explained to The Daily Wire. “Whatever motivation PayPal has for establishing these vague new categories of prohibited expression, they will almost certainly have a severe chilling effect on users’ speech. As is often the case with ill-defined and viewpoint-discriminatory speech codes, those with unpopular or minority viewpoints will likely bear the brunt of these restrictions.”
The move comes days after PayPal canceled three accounts linked to Toby Young, a commentator who runs a nonprofit called Free Speech Union. The organization has defended clients such as actor and comedian Russell Brand, who recently moved his show from YouTube to Rumble in reaction to censorship from the former platform.
PayPal is no pal to free expression
UPDATE (Oct. 7, 2022): Instead of rethinking its arbitrary policing of users’ expression in the wake of the Free Speech Union incident, PayPal is doubling down: The company has now informed users of changes to its acceptable use policy, including the addition of new categories of prohibited speech. These changes take effect on Nov. 3.
The new policy dramatically expands PayPal’s power to take action against users for activity on the service involving disfavored speech. That includes “any messages, content, or materials that, in PayPal’s sole discretion” are “harmful” or “objectionable,” depict or even appear to depict nudity, “depict, promote, or incite hatred or discrimination of protected groups,” present a risk to a user’s “wellbeing,” “promote misinformation,” or are, in PayPal’s opinion, “otherwise unfit for publication.”
That last provision effectively means PayPal can slap you with a violation of its acceptable use policy for anything you say as part of a transaction and any expressive content or materials for which you seek payment through PayPal. (FIRE accepts PayPal donations and hopes the company will not find that this blog is “unfit for publication.”) To amplify the chilling effect, each violation of the policy may subject a user to a $2,500 penalty, which PayPal reserves the right to debit directly from the user’s account.
As FIRE explains in our statement on free speech and online payment processors:
When these companies appoint themselves the arbiters of what speech and views are acceptable, shutting people and organizations out of the online financial ecosystem for wrongthink, they seriously undermine our culture of free expression.
We will continue to monitor this space.
UPDATE (Oct. 7, 2022): Instead of rethinking its arbitrary policing of users’ expression in the wake of the Free Speech Union incident, PayPal is doubling down: The company has now informed users of changes to its acceptable use policy, including the addition of new categories of prohibited speech. These changes take effect on Nov. 3.
The new policy dramatically expands PayPal’s power to take action against users for activity on the service involving disfavored speech. That includes “any messages, content, or materials that, in PayPal’s sole discretion” are “harmful” or “objectionable,” depict or even appear to depict nudity, “depict, promote, or incite hatred or discrimination of protected groups,” present a risk to a user’s “wellbeing,” “promote misinformation,” or are, in PayPal’s opinion, “otherwise unfit for publication.”
That last provision effectively means PayPal can slap you with a violation of its acceptable use policy for anything you say as part of a transaction and any expressive content or materials for which you seek payment through PayPal. (FIRE accepts PayPal donations and hopes the company will not find that this blog is “unfit for publication.”) To amplify the chilling effect, each violation of the policy may subject a user to a $2,500 penalty, which PayPal reserves the right to debit directly from the user’s account.
As FIRE explains in our statement on free speech and online payment processors:
When these companies appoint themselves the arbiters of what speech and views are acceptable, shutting people and organizations out of the online financial ecosystem for wrongthink, they seriously undermine our culture of free expression.
We will continue to monitor this space.
今日的大众对专制的想象还基本停留在冷战时代：以政府为行动主体，以高墙、岗哨、铁丝网、掩人耳目的密探、破门而入的警察为表象的控制。尚未进入他们视野的是数据时代兴起的数据化专制：其主体是商业-意识形态集团，其表象是你的言论和账号被平台清除，银行账户上少个零，买火车票时被系统自动拒绝，等等。这类专制的新表象不像旧表象一样骇人，所以目前相当成功地规避了大众的关注。商业-意识形态集团也因此可以悄悄地、缓步地继续扩张权力。
西方大众当然不愿意活在一套社会信用体系里，但精英颇想把他们诱入某个版本的社会信用系统当中，比如进步主义版。许多知识界的败类是这场阳谋的鼓吹者。
西方大众当然不愿意活在一套社会信用体系里，但精英颇想把他们诱入某个版本的社会信用系统当中，比如进步主义版。许多知识界的败类是这场阳谋的鼓吹者。
民调大大低估右翼选民的情况在巴西也出现了：
Brazil polling firms among big losers in first-round election
BRASILIA, Oct 3 (Reuters) - (This Oct. 3 story has been refiled to fix spelling of name in paragraph 5 to Andrei Roman)
The first round of Brazil's presidential election has come and gone with no final victor, but some big losers have emerged: opinion pollsters.
Surveys in Brazil had leftist challenger Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva up anywhere from 7 to 17 percentage points over right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro in the weeks leading up to the election, with some suggesting he could reach the 50% threshold in Sunday's vote needed to avoid a runoff on Oct. 30.
When Brazilians cast their ballots, however, Lula's lead over Bolsonaro was just over 5 percentage points, setting the two up for an unexpectedly competitive runoff. In some Senate and gubernatorial races, Bolsonaro allies outperformed opinion polls by more than 20 points.
Coming after major misses in U.S. elections and the 2016 Brexit referendum, where surveys failed to detect the depth of conservative sentiment, Sunday's result in Brazil has public opinion firms scratching their heads once again.
Brazil polling firms among big losers in first-round election
BRASILIA, Oct 3 (Reuters) - (This Oct. 3 story has been refiled to fix spelling of name in paragraph 5 to Andrei Roman)
The first round of Brazil's presidential election has come and gone with no final victor, but some big losers have emerged: opinion pollsters.
Surveys in Brazil had leftist challenger Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva up anywhere from 7 to 17 percentage points over right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro in the weeks leading up to the election, with some suggesting he could reach the 50% threshold in Sunday's vote needed to avoid a runoff on Oct. 30.
When Brazilians cast their ballots, however, Lula's lead over Bolsonaro was just over 5 percentage points, setting the two up for an unexpectedly competitive runoff. In some Senate and gubernatorial races, Bolsonaro allies outperformed opinion polls by more than 20 points.
Coming after major misses in U.S. elections and the 2016 Brexit referendum, where surveys failed to detect the depth of conservative sentiment, Sunday's result in Brazil has public opinion firms scratching their heads once again.
巴西右翼平民派正在成为政坛稳定势力：
Right-wing wins in Brazil's Congress show staying power of 'Bolsonarismo'
A strong election night for allies of President Jair Bolsonaro have given his party the most seats in both chambers of Congress, highlighting the enduring strength of his conservative movement even if he falls short of re-election.
His right-wing Liberal Party (PL), won 99 seats in the 513-member lower house, up from 77, and right-leaning parties allied with Bolsonaro now control half the chamber.
The bigger surprise in Sunday's voting was in the Senate where Bolsonaro's party and its election allies won 13 of the 27 seats up for grabs, a party spokesman said.
"Against all odds and everyone, we won 2 million more votes this year than in 2018," Bolsonaro posted on social media in Monday's early hours. "We also elected the largest benches in the lower house and the Senate, which was our main priority."
Right-wing wins in Brazil's Congress show staying power of 'Bolsonarismo'
A strong election night for allies of President Jair Bolsonaro have given his party the most seats in both chambers of Congress, highlighting the enduring strength of his conservative movement even if he falls short of re-election.
His right-wing Liberal Party (PL), won 99 seats in the 513-member lower house, up from 77, and right-leaning parties allied with Bolsonaro now control half the chamber.
The bigger surprise in Sunday's voting was in the Senate where Bolsonaro's party and its election allies won 13 of the 27 seats up for grabs, a party spokesman said.
"Against all odds and everyone, we won 2 million more votes this year than in 2018," Bolsonaro posted on social media in Monday's early hours. "We also elected the largest benches in the lower house and the Senate, which was our main priority."
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Liz Truss’s poll ratings plummet lower than Boris Johnson’s before he was forced out
Liz Truss’s personal popularity ratings are lower than those of Boris Johnson when his premiership came to an end, a new Observer poll has revealed.
The latest Opinium poll shows a precipitous fall in Truss’s personal ratings after the fallout from her government’s mini-budget, and Labour surging ahead with voters across a whole range of issues.
The prime minister’s net approval rating has fallen from -9 to -37 in the space of a week, as voters took a dim view of many measures in her mini-budget and her subsequent attempts to defend them. The latest poll showed 18% approved of the job she is doing, with 55% disapproving.
It gives her a worse net rating than the -28 that Johnson registered in the final Opinium poll before his removal as Tory leader. However, Truss’s score is slightly better than Johnson’s worst ever rating of -42, recorded at the height of the partygate scandal.
In only the second poll since Truss became prime minister, Labour’s overall poll lead has increased from five points to 19 points, mirroring a collapse in Tory support in other polls published in the past few days. Tory support fell to 27% of the vote, with Labour on 46%.
Liz Truss’s poll ratings plummet lower than Boris Johnson’s before he was forced out
Liz Truss’s personal popularity ratings are lower than those of Boris Johnson when his premiership came to an end, a new Observer poll has revealed.
The latest Opinium poll shows a precipitous fall in Truss’s personal ratings after the fallout from her government’s mini-budget, and Labour surging ahead with voters across a whole range of issues.
The prime minister’s net approval rating has fallen from -9 to -37 in the space of a week, as voters took a dim view of many measures in her mini-budget and her subsequent attempts to defend them. The latest poll showed 18% approved of the job she is doing, with 55% disapproving.
It gives her a worse net rating than the -28 that Johnson registered in the final Opinium poll before his removal as Tory leader. However, Truss’s score is slightly better than Johnson’s worst ever rating of -42, recorded at the height of the partygate scandal.
In only the second poll since Truss became prime minister, Labour’s overall poll lead has increased from five points to 19 points, mirroring a collapse in Tory support in other polls published in the past few days. Tory support fell to 27% of the vote, with Labour on 46%.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Liz Truss abandons plan to scrap 45p top rate of income tax amid Tory revolt
Liz Truss’s government has abandoned its plan to abolish the 45% top rate of income tax in a humiliating U-turn, after a growing Conservative revolt over the policy and a turbulent reaction from markets.
Announcing the decision in an early morning tweet on Monday, Kwasi Kwarteng said: “We get it, and we have listened.”
The chancellor said the decision to cut tax for people on incomes of £150,000 or more “has become a distraction from our overriding mission to tackle the challenges facing our country”.
He continued: “As a result, I’m announcing we are not proceeding with the abolition of the 45p tax rate.”
.......
It is nonetheless a significant reverse for a chancellor in the job for little more than three weeks, as well as for Truss. Kwarteng, who had been due to tell the conference that he was “confident our plan is the right one”, told Today he had not considered resigning.
The sudden change of course followed a realisation within Downing Street that so many Conservative MPs objected to the policy that it might be voted down in parliament, amid worries from voters about rising mortgage costs.
Liz Truss abandons plan to scrap 45p top rate of income tax amid Tory revolt
Liz Truss’s government has abandoned its plan to abolish the 45% top rate of income tax in a humiliating U-turn, after a growing Conservative revolt over the policy and a turbulent reaction from markets.
Announcing the decision in an early morning tweet on Monday, Kwasi Kwarteng said: “We get it, and we have listened.”
The chancellor said the decision to cut tax for people on incomes of £150,000 or more “has become a distraction from our overriding mission to tackle the challenges facing our country”.
He continued: “As a result, I’m announcing we are not proceeding with the abolition of the 45p tax rate.”
.......
It is nonetheless a significant reverse for a chancellor in the job for little more than three weeks, as well as for Truss. Kwarteng, who had been due to tell the conference that he was “confident our plan is the right one”, told Today he had not considered resigning.
The sudden change of course followed a realisation within Downing Street that so many Conservative MPs objected to the policy that it might be voted down in parliament, amid worries from voters about rising mortgage costs.
Meloni's Conservative Revolution
...Since the Cold War, the Anglosphere Right has broadly been defined by adherence to the ideology of free markets and individual rights—the politics of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. De-regulation, tax cuts, and GDP growth are the three cardinal commandments of this religion of unfettered productivity. Social policies, by contrast, have largely been neglected, leaving free rein for the social and cultural fabric of society to be dominated by the Left. This ideology has remained ingrained in the U.S. Republican Party and the British Conservative Party. To this day, they remain largely libertarian; “fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.” Their ideas are rooted in the philosophies of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman—even Adam Smith, their precursor, believed in some form of regulation for the public good. But ideas of fairness and equity have largely faded from this right-wing worldview.
European, and especially Italian conservatism is taking a different route. To be clear, Ms. Meloni’s fiscal policies are more capitalist in character than those of the Italian Socialists and Communists, but these parties have all but disappeared from Italy’s political field. She’s a disciple not just of the Italian Social Movement (MSI), but of Berlusconi’s party, which largely conformed to the ‘90s trend that prioritised economic growth. The absence of an Italian left-wing populist leader (in the vein of Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders) can be explained by the enduring presence of an extensive welfare state in Italy, one which Mr. Berlusconi—unlike Thatcher or Reagan—was largely unwilling to dismantle, and which Ms. Meloni also seeks to keep relatively intact.
...Since the Cold War, the Anglosphere Right has broadly been defined by adherence to the ideology of free markets and individual rights—the politics of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. De-regulation, tax cuts, and GDP growth are the three cardinal commandments of this religion of unfettered productivity. Social policies, by contrast, have largely been neglected, leaving free rein for the social and cultural fabric of society to be dominated by the Left. This ideology has remained ingrained in the U.S. Republican Party and the British Conservative Party. To this day, they remain largely libertarian; “fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.” Their ideas are rooted in the philosophies of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman—even Adam Smith, their precursor, believed in some form of regulation for the public good. But ideas of fairness and equity have largely faded from this right-wing worldview.
European, and especially Italian conservatism is taking a different route. To be clear, Ms. Meloni’s fiscal policies are more capitalist in character than those of the Italian Socialists and Communists, but these parties have all but disappeared from Italy’s political field. She’s a disciple not just of the Italian Social Movement (MSI), but of Berlusconi’s party, which largely conformed to the ‘90s trend that prioritised economic growth. The absence of an Italian left-wing populist leader (in the vein of Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders) can be explained by the enduring presence of an extensive welfare state in Italy, one which Mr. Berlusconi—unlike Thatcher or Reagan—was largely unwilling to dismantle, and which Ms. Meloni also seeks to keep relatively intact.
Sweden: Right-wing party get 4 chairmanships in parliament
STOCKHOLM (AP) — A right-wing populist party that received the second-most votes in Sweden’s general election last month landed the chairmanships of four parliamentary committees Saturday and with it, the ability to wield more influence in mainstream Swedish politics.
The positions to be held by lawmakers from the Sweden Democrats include chairing the Riksdag’s justice, foreign affair, business affairs and labor market committees.
“It is important for us, a milestone in the party’s history,” legislator Richard Jomshof, a Sweden Democrat who was tapped to be the next chairman of the justice committee, told Swedish public broadcaster SVT. “It is an expression of the fact that we are Sweden’s second largest party.”
In addition to the four chairperson posts, the party was allowed to name the vice-chairs of parliament’s civil affairs, traffic, defense and tax committees.
Sweden Democrats, a nationalist and anti-immigration party with roots in the neo-Nazi movement, is part of right-wing bloc that won a narrow majority in the Riksdag in the Sept. 11 election.
STOCKHOLM (AP) — A right-wing populist party that received the second-most votes in Sweden’s general election last month landed the chairmanships of four parliamentary committees Saturday and with it, the ability to wield more influence in mainstream Swedish politics.
The positions to be held by lawmakers from the Sweden Democrats include chairing the Riksdag’s justice, foreign affair, business affairs and labor market committees.
“It is important for us, a milestone in the party’s history,” legislator Richard Jomshof, a Sweden Democrat who was tapped to be the next chairman of the justice committee, told Swedish public broadcaster SVT. “It is an expression of the fact that we are Sweden’s second largest party.”
In addition to the four chairperson posts, the party was allowed to name the vice-chairs of parliament’s civil affairs, traffic, defense and tax committees.
Sweden Democrats, a nationalist and anti-immigration party with roots in the neo-Nazi movement, is part of right-wing bloc that won a narrow majority in the Riksdag in the Sept. 11 election.