2011 2012 federal poverty guidelines

One Direction

2012.01.24 03:37 One Direction

Vas happenin’? You’ve made it to OneDirection where we discuss anything and everything related to 1D & each of the guys’ solo careers! Think of us as a one stop shop 🍌🥑🐓🥄☘️
[link]

2010.12.14 15:32 TheTame London Social Club

Drink, Eat, Dance, Connect, Be Merry! Or Don't, Just Come And Stand Around, That's Cool Too!
[link]

2021.07.19 00:44 Incorporating LeanFIRE principles w/ inflation and rising costs in mind

This subreddit is dedicated to the FIRE-minded folks who uses the principles of LeanFIRE but are not bounded to flat household expense limits. This subreddit recognizes that rising costs, inflation, raising a family, and location plays a significant role in one's FIRE journey and should not deter the pursue of seeking financial knowledge.
[link]

2024.06.01 15:29 mattisafootballguy [OC] Countries and their performance in EL/CL this century

This post looks at the success of countries at UEFA competitions during the 21st century (2001-present). This list is for club football.
Finals represented by two teams from the same country are counted as wins for that country, as two distinct finalists, and as one final.
Unique clubs are the number of unique clubs participating in finals from that particular country: eg., Portugal has had four clubs compete in EL finals, therefore their number is four.
Also, note that the EL and UEFA Cup refer to the same competition.

EL/UEFA Cup Finals

Country Total Finals Contested Total Finalists EL Finals Won EL Finals Lost Unique finalists Win% Notes
Spain 13 15 12 Wins 1 Loss 7 92% Alaves lost in 2001 to Liverpool via the Golden Goal rule.
England 8 9 4 Wins 4 Losses 6 50% Middlesborough and Fulham have both contested EL finals.
Portugal 5 6 2 wins 3 losses 4 40% Porto has won the EL twice this century, including an all-Portuguese final in 2011.
Russia 2 2 2 Wins 0 losses 2 100% Russian clubs (CSKA Moscow and Zenit St. Petersburg) won their finals in 2005 and 2008.
Germany 4 4 1 Win 3 Losses 4 25% Dortmund, Leverkusen, Frankfurt, and Werder Bremen have made the finals, but only Frankfurt won.
Italy 3 3 1 Win 2 Losses 3 33% The first EL final for Italian sides this century was in 2020.
Netherlands 2 2 1 Win 1 Loss 2 50% Feyenoord defeated Dortmund in 2002
Ukraine 2 2 1 Win 1 Loss 2 50% Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk, the Ukranian finalist in 2016, has since become defunct after falling into bankruptcy in 2018.
Scotland 3 3 0 Wins 3 Losses 2 0% Rangers (2 finals) and Celtic (1 final) have made the EL final this century.
France 2 2 0 Wins 2 Losses 1 0% Marseille is the only French team to make the EL final in this century, losing both.

CL Finals

Country Total Finals Contested Total Finalists CL Finals Won CL Finals Lost Unique finalists Win% Notes
Spain 13* 16 11 Wins 1 Loss 4 92% While Valencia and Atletico have played 4 finals this century, 3 came against Real Madrid.
England 12 15 6 Wins 6 Losses 6 50% The most unique teams (Spurs, Arsenal, United, Liverpool, Chelsea, and City).
Germany 7* 8 3 Wins 3 Losses 3 50% Leverkusen lost in 2002 to complete being runners-up in all 3 club competitions - the league, the cup, and the CL.
Italy 7 8 3 Wins 4 Losses 3 43% The finalists from Italy have participated in at least two finals this century - Juventus (3), Milan (3), and Inter (2). Juventus is the only one not to win once this century.
Portugal 1 1 1 Win 0 Losses 1 100% Porto won in 2004
France 2 2 0 Wins 2 Losses 2 0% Monaco and PSG have both loss finals this century

Summary of EL/CL

Country Total Finals Contested Total Finalists Finals Won Finals Lost Unique finalists (EL+CL) Win% Notes
Spain 26 31 24 Wins 2 Losses 9 (11) 92% Undefeated in finals since 2001 when Alaves lost to Liverpool (5-4 via golden goal, EL) and Valencia lost to Bayern on penalties (CL).
England 20 23 10 Wins 10 Losses 10 (12) 50% English teams have lost and won exactly 50% of finals in the EL and CL respectively.
Italy 9 10 4 Wins 5 Losses 5 (6) 44% Atalanta became the first Italian team to win the EL this century.
Germany 11 12 4 Wins 6 Losses 6 (7) 40% CL final to be played
Portugal 6 7 3 Wins 3 Losses 4 (5) 50% Portugal was the first country to win both the EL and CL this century.
Netherlands 2 2 1 Win 1 Loss 2 (2) 50%
Ukraine 2 2 1 Win 1 Loss 2 (2) 50%
France 4 4 0 Wins 4 Losses 3 (3) 0% France has failed to win any EL or CL finals. Monaco and PSG have lost in the CL, while Marseille has been beaten in the EL.
Scotland 3 3 0 Wins 3 Losses 2 (2) 0% Rangers (2 finals) and Celtic (1 final) have made the EL final this century.

By Club (min. 2 finals)

Club Country EL Finals CL Finals Total Finals Wins (Win %) Loss Notes
Sevilla 7 0 7 7 Wins (100%) 0 Undefeated in all seven EL finals.
Madrid 0 7* 7* 6 Wins (100%) 0 Match in hand vs Dortmund
Atletico 3 2 5 3 Wins (60%) 2 Both losses vs Madrid
Barcelona 0 4 4 4 Wins (100%) 0 One of the few remaining clubs to win the CL multiple times, but not the EL.
Valencia 1 2 3 1 (33%) 2 Lost both CL finals
Liverpool 2 5 7 3 (42%) 4 Losses against Madrid (x2), Sevilla, and AC Milan.
Chelsea 2 3 5 4 (80%) 1 Sole loss came against United in 2008 CL
Manchester United 2 3 5 2 (40%) 3 Losses against Barcelona (x2) and Villarreal
Manchester City 0 2 2 1 (50%) 1 Finals in 2021 and 2023
AC Milan 0 3 3 2 (66%) 1 Miracle of Istanbul...
Juventus 0 3 3 0 (0%) 3 The most consecutive CL losses without winning this century.
Inter 1 2 3 1 (33%) 2 Inter was the first Italian team to compete in an EL final (2020) this century.
Bayern Munich 0 5 5 3 (60%) 2 Losses in 2010 and 2012 CL
Dortmund 2* 1 3 0 (0%) 2 CL final to be played
Leverkusen 1 1 2 0 (0%) 2 The only club to make the EL and CL this century, but not win either.
Porto 1 2 3 3 (100%) 0 The first club to win the EL+CL this century
Benfica 2 0 2 0 (0%) 2 Losses against Chelsea and Sevilla in back-to-back years.
Marseille 2 0 2 0 (0%) 2 Loss both EL finals
Rangers 2 0 2 0 (0%) 2 Losses against Frankfurt and Zenit St. Petersburg
submitted by mattisafootballguy to soccer [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 15:09 yesithinksomaybenot WordPress Podcast For People Who Use WordPress

Hi all,
Believe it or not this is my third attempt at posting this, the link I wanted to share with you kept coming up as moutube not youtube.
Anyways, enough of that.
I've recently posted (18 days ago) about a Podcast I've started speaking to people in WordPress. Those who use it, plugin owners etc. It's doing ok as it happens. And thank you to all of you who upvoted on the post.
OG post here: https://www.reddit.com/Wordpress/comments/1cr3ws4/podcast_for_speaking_to_people_who_use_wordpress/
Anyway, I've finally got myself into gear and set up a scheduling tool for booking a slot to come on the podcast.

The premise:

It's all about you. It's a fun, friendly format, designed to talk about you. Share what you're working on, how you cope and such with the daily grind. What drives you etc. It's a way of showcasing WordPress without being an affiliate laden video for financial gain.

About me:

I'm a 47 year old WP tinkerer, not technical, but I sort of know my way around it. I started with WordPress back in 2011 or maybe 2012? Man, I said I'm old!!
I'm really quite shy IRL, but on video I like to have a laugh and get to know people. I've made some great friends along the way, albeit virtual ones, but nonetheless friends.
I'm taking a different tact, it's about people, people love hearing about others. They find inspiration and commonality, hearing from those working in WP is an eye opener and makes for good content.
I've had a couple of people sniff around the OG post but nothing firmly booked. This month I have 10 guests lined up from all types of backgrounds, which should make for interesting stuff!

Get on the show:

Link to show: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsStkcl0dvVYk95Nn5Q03VQhqQtwym6S6
If you'd like to get on the show and have a chat about you, and what you do etc. Please, please DM me, I want to speak to the unsung those who use WP but rarely get a chance to speak up about what they do.
The 10 guests (one or two) are big names in WP, this is to push the channel further and get in front of their subscribers as well. So I'm doing what I can to make a mark, so to speak.
I'd love to have an inbox choc full of people wanting to come on, so have at it people!
Mods, I hope this is OK, just trying to firm up some interest and get talking to lots of different people!
Message ends.
submitted by yesithinksomaybenot to Wordpress [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 15:07 TacoTVSupport The Population of Non-Permanent Residents in Canada Has Seen a Threefold Increase Since 2016

The Population of Non-Permanent Residents in Canada Has Seen a Threefold Increase Since 2016 submitted by TacoTVSupport to CanadasPulse [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 14:58 Pale_Mushroom7128 Possible to hide year in dynamic collection name when sorting them by year?

Possible to hide year in dynamic collection name when sorting them by year?
Not exactly the biggest deal in the world but I started creating some dynamic collection so I could easily play game series in chronological release date. Fine, but now in the collections list a seemingly random year of one of the games gets listed in front of the collection name.
https://preview.redd.it/g54je3oyjy3d1.jpg?width=3616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33a256b12591f56a688702f63fb651ba10a88adf
Tried a few different themes, always there. Is it possible to hide or remove that?
submitted by Pale_Mushroom7128 to batocera [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 14:17 taowandering Asking for guidance on Primary and Secondary for filing next week

Looking for guidance on filing Claim (1st) next week. TIA!!
In Persian Gulf 02Aug90 - 30SEP90 - TERA, Reported Sarin use while ONSTA
Filed intent to file, June 2023
I have Dx and meds.
Do I need to specify primary and secondary?
I have VHA and Civi doc confirming.
Do I also file for Raynauds with pics or wait for Dx?
My list of Diagnoses - most confirmed within a year or so, almost all 5+ to 20 years.
Sorry, the timeline, as best as I can recall.
Nothing prior to service. IN Service: 1990 - Stress-induced asthma 1991 - 6 mos LIMDU s/p fall on ship, LBP, MRI findings. PhysTherapy found bilateral chondromalacia patella, deficit of leg strength Two Psych evals after chewing out CAPT DOC re: heal my back 1992 - 1993 A lot of inhalers and NSAIDS for back pain.
After Honorable: 1997 - VA - albuterol Asthma 2000 - Chronic Rhinitis, Sinusitis, Sleep Apnea Symptoms, Weight gain 2001 - Ride for 9/11 - SD to NYC, Police Escort, Tour Ground Zero still on fire, Numb + Avoidance 2002 - Gout, kidney stones 2004, 2005 - VA - Cardioversions x 2 + OSA CPAP + Hypertension + Borderline A1C @ 6.4, GERD 2006 - CIVI - Anxiety, Asthma, LBP, neck pain, TN, Paroxysmal Afib, CHF 2007 - Pain increased, MDD, Anxiety, Nasal Polyps, common sinus infections, persistent cough 2011 - VA - TIA, Gout+, Hypertension, Kidney Stones, Morbid Obesity 2012 - Divorce w/ profound anger, Isolation begins, Depression +, Lungs feel swollen, SOB 2014 - A1C ~7.0, weight gain, LBP worsens, OSA+CSA BIPAP 2016 - Restless Leg Syndrome, severe asthma, unable to perform job, 50% work 2017 - Nasal Polyps confirmed on MRI, IBS Sx, Shut in, Lost Engagement, Isolation, Max Singulair, Kenalog shot for allergic reactions and worsening breathing. 2020 Back and Neck Pain now CHRONIC, Anxiety Increased, Insomnia, Fatigue, SI, PTSD anger and guilt 2022 - Elevated BNP (confirms CHF), Angiogram for two artery 50% occlusion, PTSD and Insomnia go through the roof as I reduced Percocet from 40 mg/day to 20 mg/day. Psych confirms "compensating behaviors lost during 7 years of consistent Percocet use, Lyrica and Gabapentin both failed as I lost motor control and balance. Lost EOD training buddy to Lung Cancer. Effexor Maxed. Multiuse for rescue inhaler. 2023 - IBS worsens, GERD returns, SI, PTSD rated to 49, Unable to work regularly, physical labor only for 3-5 minutes, walking more than 100 years leads to breathlessness. Add steroid inhaler. 2024 - Afib to Chronic, Start PTSD and MDD counseling with VA
CAD - Coronary artery disease (SCT 53741008) DBQ + Angiogram + Stress tests
Chronic diastolic heart failure (SCT 441530006) DBQ + echo + Stress tests + Confirmed
Transient Ischemic Attack Apr 9,2011@11:44
I48.20 Chronic atrial fibrillation R79.89- Elevated brain natrluretic peptide (BNP) level 8/2/22
Depression (SCT 35489007)
Anxiety (SCT 48694002)
PTSD Rated 49, Psychiatrist stated anxiety valid for life risk in Gulf Attack
G47.00- Insomnia Ongoing, Part of PTSD
Trigeminal neuralgia (SCT 31681005)
G89.4- Chronic pain syndrome
M79.2 - Neuralgia Part Back Pain
R10.9- Abdominal cramping IBS - Dicyclomine
K21.9- GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) after meds jumped again
R11.0- Nausea Zofran
K59.00 - Constipation Part of IBS
M54.5 - Low back pain - CHRONIC 3-8 Naprosyn + 2 Aspirin 325 Daily
M542 Neck pain - CHRONIC 3-8 Naprosyn + 2 Aspirin 325 Daily
Obstructive Sleep Apnea of Adult (SCT 1101000119103) Twice confirmed OSA + CSA
J01.01- Acute recurrent maxilary sinusits Twice Daily flushes, 4-6 infections each year
R53.83- Fatigue
G25.81 - Restless leg syndrome confirmed in latest Sleep Study this month
R09.81 - Congestion of nasal sinus Twice Daily flushes, 4-6 infections each year
J309.- Allergic rhinitis - Chronic Twice Daily flushes, 4-6 infections each year
Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 (SCT 44054006) Hyperlipidemia (SCT 55822004)
Gout (SCT 90560007)
Morbid obesity (SCT 238136002) Met with Nutrition team and lost weight
Last PCP noted from my Civilian records:
"These records - Dr. Nichols, MD - Show drug compliance, Constant Pain from Back, Recurring Gout and kidney stones, Development of severe lung issues, Rx History."
submitted by taowandering to VeteransBenefits [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 14:04 bluemarvel99 Have You Ever Played Through An Entire Game On The Lowest Graphic Settings (Potato Graphics)?

I did this before I even had a proper gaming PC and had to make due with the shitty Best Buy all-in-one desktop PC I had to share with my siblings. This is back in 2011-2012 or so. Back then, I was mostly playing older games from the 2000's and even those could barely run on the thing (who knows what kind of shitty graphics card it had?).
One game I remember playing though the entire thing on absolute dogshit potato settings was Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines. I put the resolution at 640x480 and everything on low or else it would chug along at sub-10 frames per second. Even with everything on the lowest settings/resolution possible it really only ran at about 20 frames per second and I played through the entire game like that lol. The game still managed to blow me away and remains one of my favourite RPG's of all time. Nowadays that experience would be totally unplayable, but when your young & broke you kinda have to make due with what you have.
Another game I remember doing a potato run through was KOTOR 2. This game specifically gave me a hard time just to get running at all. I had to look up tutorials just to get past the character creation screen (I don't remember why it was so difficult to get running but I do remember it being a common enough problem that there were tutorials & troubleshooting tips readily available). Again, KOTOR 2, despite playing it the worst way possible, ended up being one of my favourite games ever. I guess when you're young and determined, your mind kind of fills in the blanks and handwaves away how terrible the experience actually is to play, because there's no way I play games like this nowadays. I guess back then I didn't give a shit about framerate or graphics, just as long as I got to play it, that as good enough for me.
submitted by bluemarvel99 to patientgamers [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 13:56 Throwaway73835288 All WWE Men's World Championship Reigns Ranked By Day Count (June 1st, 2024)

  1. Bruno Sammartino (WWE): 2,803 Days: May 17th, 1963 - January 18th, 1971
  2. Bob Backlund (WWE): 2,135 Days: February 20th, 1978 - December 26th, 1983
  3. Hulk Hogan (WWE): 1,474 Days: January 23rd, 1984 - February 5th, 1988
  4. Roman Reigns (UC): 1,316 Days: August 30th, 2020 - April 7th, 2024
  5. Bruno Sammartino (WWE): 1,237 Days: December 10th, 1973 - April 30th, 1977
  6. Pedro Morales (WWE): 1,027 Days: February 8th, 1971 - December 1st, 1973
  7. Roman Reigns (WWE): 735 Days: April 3rd, 2022 - April 7th, 2024
  8. Brock Lesnar (UC): 504 Days: April 2nd, 2017 - August 19th, 2018
  9. Hulk Hogan (WCW): 469 Days: July 17th, 1994 - October 29th, 1995
  10. CM Punk (WWE): 434 Days: November 20th, 2011 - January 27th, 2013
  11. Shane Douglas (ECW): 406 Days: November 30th, 1997 - January 10th, 1999
  12. John Cena (WWE): 380 Days: September 17th, 2006 - October 2nd, 2007
  13. AJ Styles (WWE): 371 Days: November 7th, 2017 - November 13th, 2018
  14. Randy Savage (WWE): 371 Days: March 27th, 1988 - April 2nd, 1989
  15. Hulk Hogan (WWE): 364 Days: April 2nd, 1989 - April 1st, 1990
  16. Hulk Hogan (WCW): 359 Days: August 10th, 1996 - August 4th, 1997
  17. Diesel (WWE): 358 Days: November 26th, 1994 - November 19th, 1995
  18. Seth "Freakin" Rollins (WHC): 316 Days: May 27th, 2023 - April 7th, 2024
  19. Superstar Billy Graham (WWE): 296 Days: April 30th, 1977 - February 20th, 1978
  20. Ultimate Warrior (WWE): 293 Days: April 1st, 1990 - January 19th, 1991
  21. Vader (WCW): 285 Days: March 17th, 1993 - December 27th, 1993
  22. Batista (WHT): 282 Days: April 3rd, 2005 - January 10th, 2006
  23. John Cena (WWE): 280 Days: April 3rd, 2005 - January 8th, 2006
  24. JBL (WWE): 280 Days: June 27th, 2004 - April 3rd, 2005
  25. Triple H (WHT): 280 Days: December 15th, 2002 - September 21st, 2003
  26. Yokozuna (WWE): 280 Days: June 13th, 1993 - March 20th, 1994
  27. Tazz (ECW): 252 Days: January 10th, 1999 - September 19th, 1999
  28. Raven (ECW): 252 Days: January 27th, 1996 - October 5th, 1996
  29. Bret Hart (WWE): 248 Days: March 20th, 1994 - November 23rd, 1994
  30. Hulk Hogan (WWE): 248 Days: March 24th, 1991 - November 27th, 1991
  31. Shawn Michaels (WWE): 231 Days: March 31st, 1996 - November 17th, 1996
  32. Shane Douglas (ECW): 231 Days: August 27th, 1994 - April 15th, 1995
  33. Lex Luger (WCW): 230 Days: July 14th, 1991 - February 29th, 1992
  34. Brock Lesnar (WWE): 224 Days: August 17th, 2014 - March 29th, 2015
  35. Seth Rollins (WWE): 221 Days: March 29th, 2015 - November 5th, 2015
  36. Sheamus (WHT): 210 Days: April 1st, 2012 - October 28th, 2012
  37. Triple H (WWE): 210 Days: April 27th, 2008 - November 23rd, 2008
  38. Christian (ECW): 205 Days: July 26th, 2009 - February 16th, 2010
  39. Drew McIntyre (WWE): 203 Days: April 5th, 2020 - October 25th, 2020
  40. Randy Orton (WWE): 203 Days: October 7th, 2007 - April 27th, 2008
  41. Ric Flair (WCW): 202 Days: December 27th, 1993 - July 17th, 1994
  42. Bobby Lashley (WWE): 196 Days: March 1st, 2021 - September 13th, 2021
  43. The Sandman (ECW): 196 Days: April 15th, 1995 - October 28th, 1995
  44. Kevin Owens (UC): 188 Days: August 29th, 2016 - March 5th, 2017
  45. Brock Lesnar (WWE): 184 Days: October 4th, 2019 - April 5th, 2020
  46. Kofi Kingston (WWE): 180 Days: April 7th, 2019 - October 4th, 2019
  47. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin (WWE): 175 Days: April 1st, 2001 - September 23rd, 2001
  48. Goldberg (WCW): 174 Days: July 6th, 1998 - December 27th, 1998
  49. Bret Hart (WWE): 174 Days: October 12th, 1992 - April 4th, 1993
  50. Ric Flair (WCW): 171 Days: January 11th, 1991 - July 1st, 1991
  51. Jinder Mahal (WWE): 170 Days: May 21st, 2017 - November 7th, 2017
  52. Justin Credible (ECW): 162 Days: April 22nd, 2000 - October 1st, 2000
  53. Randy Orton (WWE): 161 Days: October 27th, 2013 - April 6th, 2014
  54. The Miz (WWE): 160 Days: November 22nd, 2010 - May 1st, 2011
  55. Brock Lesnar (UC): 156 Days: November 2nd, 2018 - April 7th, 2019
  56. Kane (WHT): 154 Days: July 18th, 2010 - December 19th, 2010
  57. Chris Benoit (WHT): 154 Days: March 14th, 2004 - August 15th, 2004
  58. Big Show (ECW): 152 Days: July 4th, 2006 - December 3rd, 2006
  59. Brock Lesnar (WWE): 150 Days: September 18th, 2003 - February 15th, 2004
  60. Ron Simmons (WCW): 150 Days: August 2nd, 1992 - December 30th, 1992
  61. Randy Savage (WWE): 149 Days: April 5th, 1992 - September 1st, 1992
  62. Bobby Lashley (ECW): 147 Days: December 3rd, 2006 - April 29th, 2007
  63. Daniel Bryan (WWE): 145 Days: November 13th, 2018 - April 7th, 2019
  64. CM Punk (ECW): 143 Days: September 1st, 2007 - January 22nd, 2008
  65. Braun Strowman (UC): 141 Days: April 4th, 2020 - August 23rd, 2020
  66. Hulk Hogan (WCW): 141 Days: August 9th, 1997 - December 28th, 1997
  67. AJ Styles (WWE): 140 Days: September 11th, 2016 - January 29th, 2017
  68. Undertaker (WHT): 140 Days: October 4th, 2009 - February 21st, 2010
  69. Shawn Michaels (WWE): 140 Days: November 9th, 1997 - March 29th, 1998
  70. Sting (WCW): 134 Days: February 29th, 1992 - July 12th, 1992
  71. Alberto Del Rio (WHT): 133 Days: June 16th, 2013 - October 27th, 2013
  72. John Cena (WWE): 133 Days: April 7th, 2013 - August 18th, 2013
  73. John Cena (WWE): 133 Days: January 29th, 2006 - June 11th, 2006
  74. Eddie Guerrero (WWE): 133 Days: February 15th, 2004 - June 27th, 2004
  75. Undertaker (WWE): 133 Days: March 23rd, 1997 - August 3rd, 1997
  76. Bret Hart (WWE): 133 Days: November 19th, 1995 - March 31st, 1996
  77. Matt Hardy (ECW): 128 Days: September 7th, 2008 - January 13th, 2009
  78. Raven (ECW): 127 Days: December 7th, 1996 - April 13th, 1997
  79. Batista (WHT): 126 Days: November 26th, 2006 - April 1st, 2007
  80. King Booker (WHT): 126 Days: July 23rd, 2006 - November 26th, 2006
  81. Kurt Angle (WWE): 126 Days: October 22nd, 2000 - February 25th, 2001
  82. Booker T (WCW): 120 Days: March 26th, 2001 - July 24th, 2001
  83. Scott Steiner (WCW): 120 Days: November 26th, 2000 - March 26th, 2001
  84. Bray Wyatt (UC): 119 Days: October 31st, 2019 - February 27th, 2020
  85. Brock Lesnar (WWE): 119 Days: March 30th, 2003 - July 27th, 2003
  86. The Rock (WWE): 119 Days: June 25th, 2000 - October 22nd, 2000
  87. Triple H (WWE): 118 Days: January 3rd, 2000 - April 30th, 2000
  88. Terry Funk (ECW): 118 Days: April 13th, 1997 - August 9th, 1997
  89. Rey Mysterio (WHT): 112 Days: April 2nd, 2006 - July 23rd, 2006
  90. Mike Awesome (ECW): 112 Days: December 23rd, 1999 - April 13th, 2000
  91. Big E (WWE): 110 Days: September 13th, 2021 - January 1st, 2022
  92. The Giant (WCW): 110 Days: April 22nd, 1996 - August 10th, 1996
  93. Daniel Bryan (WHT): 105 Days: December 18th, 2011 - April 1st, 2012
  94. Edge (WHT): 105 Days: December 16th, 2007 - March 30th, 2008
  95. Kurt Angle (WWE): 105 Days: December 15th, 2002 - March 30th, 2003
  96. Jack Swagger (ECW): 103 Days: January 13th, 2009 - April 26th, 2009
  97. Seth "Freakin" Rollins (UC): 98 Days: April 7th, 2019 - July 14th, 2019
  98. Chris Jericho (WWE): 98 Days: December 9th, 2001 - March 17th, 2002
  99. Bret Hart (WWE): 98 Days: August 3rd, 1997 - November 9th, 1997
  100. Drew McIntyre (WWE): 97 Days: November 16th, 2020 - February 21st, 2021
  101. Rhyno (ECW): 93 Days: January 7th, 2001 - April 10th, 2001
  102. Mark Henry (WHT): 91 Days: September 18th, 2011 - December 18th, 2011
  103. Sheamus (WWE): 91 Days: June 20th, 2010 - September 19th, 2010
  104. Kane (ECW): 91 Days: March 30th, 2008 - June 29th, 2008
  105. Batista (WHT): 91 Days: September 16th, 2007 - December 16th, 2007
  106. Triple H (WHT): 91 Days: December 14th, 2003 - March 14th, 2004
  107. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin (WWE): 91 Days: March 29th, 1998 - June 28th, 1998
  108. Alberto Del Rio (WHT): 90 Days: January 8th, 2013 - April 8th, 2013
  109. Randy Orton (WWE): 90 Days: June 15th, 2009 - September 13th, 2009
  110. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin (WWE): 90 Days: June 29th, 1998 - September 27th, 1998
  111. Mike Awesome (ECW): 89 Days: September 19th, 1999 - December 17th, 1999
  112. Triple H (WHT): 85 Days: September 12th, 2004 - December 6th, 2004
  113. Dean Ambrose (WWE): 84 Days: June 19th, 2016 - September 11th, 2016
  114. John Cena (WWE): 84 Days: March 28th, 2010 - June 20th, 2010
  115. John Cena (WHT): 84 Days: November 23rd, 2008 - February 15th, 2009
  116. Triple H (WHT): 84 Days: January 9th, 2005 - April 3rd, 2005
  117. Goldberg (WHT): 84 Days: September 21st, 2003 - December 14th, 2003
  118. Brock Lesnar (WWE): 84 Days: August 25th, 2002 - November 17th, 2002
  119. Kurt Angle (WHT): 82 Days: January 10th, 2006 - April 2nd, 2006
  120. Seth "Freakin" Rollins (UC): 81 Days: August 11th, 2019 - October 31st, 2019
  121. Jack Swagger (WHT): 79 Days: April 2nd, 2010 - June 20th, 2010
  122. Roman Reigns (WWE): 77 Days: April 3rd, 2016 - June 19th, 2016
  123. John Cena (WWE): 77 Days: May 1st, 2011 - July 17th, 2011
  124. Hulk Hogan (WCW): 77 Days: April 20th, 1998 - July 6th, 1998
  125. Ric Flair (WWE): 77 Days: January 19th, 1992 - April 5th, 1992
  126. Edge (WWE): 76 Days: July 3rd, 2006 - September 17th, 2006
  127. Triple H (WHT): 76 Days: September 2nd, 2002 - November 17th, 2002
  128. Sid Vicious (WCW): 75 Days: January 26th, 2000 - April 10th, 2000
  129. Big Show (WHT): 72 Days: October 28th, 2012 - January 8th, 2013
  130. Randy Orton (WHT): 72 Days: May 6th, 2011 - July 17th, 2011
  131. Ric Flair (WCW): 71 Days: February 11th, 1996 - April 22nd, 1996
  132. Vader (WCW): 71 Days: December 30th, 1992 - March 11th, 1993
  133. Triple H (WWE): 70 Days: January 24th, 2016 - April 3rd, 2016
  134. The Rock (WWE): 70 Days: January 27th, 2013 - April 7th, 2013
  135. Sheamus (WWE): 70 Days: December 13th, 2009 - February 21st, 2010
  136. Triple H (WWE): 70 Days: February 15th, 2009 - April 26th, 2009
  137. Mark Henry (ECW): 70 Days: June 29th, 2008 - September 7th, 2008
  138. Edge (WHT): 70 Days: May 8th, 2007 - July 17th, 2007
  139. Hulk Hogan (WWE): 70 Days: April 4th, 1993 - June 13th, 1993
  140. Dolph Ziggler (WHT): 69 Days: April 8th, 2013 - June 16th, 2013
  141. CM Punk (WHT): 69 Days: June 30th, 2008 - September 7th, 2008
  142. Hulk Hogan (WCW): 69 Days: January 4th, 1999 - March 14th, 1999
  143. Chavo Guerrero (ECW): 68 Days: January 22nd, 2008 - March 30th, 2008
  144. John Morrison (ECW): 68 Days: June 25th, 2007 - September 1st, 2007
  145. Roman Reigns (UC): 64 Days: August 19th, 2018 - October 22nd, 2018
  146. Daniel Bryan (WWE): 64 Days: April 6th, 2014 - June 9th, 2014
  147. Randy Orton (WWE): 64 Days: September 19th, 2010 - November 22nd, 2010
  148. Sgt. Slaughter (WWE): 64 Days: January 19th, 1991 - March 24th, 1991
  149. Undertaker (WWE): 63 Days: May 19th, 2002 - July 21st, 2002
  150. The Rock (WCW): 63 Days: August 19th, 2001 - October 21st, 2001
  151. Steve Corino (ECW): 63 Days: November 5th, 2000 - January 7th, 2001
  152. Kevin Nash (WCW): 63 Days: May 9th, 1999 - July 11th, 1999
  153. Sid (WWE): 63 Days: November 17th, 1996 - January 19th, 1997
  154. The Sandman (ECW): 63 Days: October 5th, 1996 - December 7th, 1996
  155. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin (WWE): 62 Days: October 8th, 2001 - December 9th, 2001
  156. Hulk Hogan (WCW): 62 Days: July 12th, 1999 - September 12th, 1999
  157. Edge (WHT): 61 Days: December 19th, 2010 - February 18th, 2011
  158. The Great Khali (WHT): 61 Days: July 17th, 2007 - September 16th, 2007
  159. Shane Douglas (ECW): 60 Days: August 17th, 1997 - October 16th, 1997
  160. Edge (WHT): 56 Days: February 18th, 2011 - April 15th, 2011
  161. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin (WWE): 56 Days: March 28th, 1999 - May 23rd, 1999
  162. Sting (WCW): 56 Days: February 22nd, 1998 - April 19th, 1998
  163. Cody Rhodes (WWE): 55 Days: April 7th, 2024 - June 1st, 2024
  164. Cody Rhodes (UC): 55 Days: April 7th, 2024 - June 1st, 2024
  165. Damian Priest (WHC): 55 Days: April 7th, 2024 - June 1st, 2024
  166. Booker T (WCW): 55 Days: October 2nd, 2000 - November 26th, 2000
  167. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin (WWE): 55 Days: June 28th, 1999 - August 22nd, 1999
  168. Kurt Angle (WWE): 53 Days: July 27th, 2003 - September 18th, 2003
  169. Booker T (WCW): 50 Days: July 9th, 2000 - August 28th, 2000
  170. Big Show (WWE): 50 Days: November 14th, 1999 - January 3rd, 2000
  171. The Rock (WWE): 50 Days: November 15th, 1998 - January 4th, 1999
  172. Randy Orton (WWE): 49 Days: April 2nd, 2017 - May 21st, 2017
  173. Bray Wyatt (WWE): 49 Days: February 12th, 2017 - April 2nd, 2017
  174. John Cena (WWE): 49 Days: June 29th, 2014 - August 17th, 2014
  175. John Cena (WHT): 49 Days: October 27th, 2013 - December 15th, 2013
  176. Alberto Del Rio (WWE): 49 Days: October 2nd, 2011 - November 20th, 2011
  177. John Cena (WWE): 49 Days: October 25th, 2009 - December 13th, 2009
  178. CM Punk (WHT): 49 Days: June 7th, 2009 - July 26th, 2009
  179. Tommy Dreamer (ECW): 49 Days: June 7th, 2009 - July 26th, 2009
  180. Edge (WHT): 49 Days: February 15th, 2009 - April 5, 2009
  181. Chris Jericho (WHT): 49 Days: September 7th, 2008 - October 26th, 2008
  182. Triple H (WWE): 49 Days: September 26th, 1999 - November 14th, 1999
  183. The Sandman (ECW): 49 Days: December 9th, 1995 - January 27th, 1996
  184. Bam Bam Bigelow (ECW): 45 Days: October 16th, 1997 - November 30th, 1997
  185. Brock Lesnar (WWE): 43 Days: February 19th, 2022 - April 3rd, 2022
  186. Sting (WCW): 43 Days: September 12th, 1999 - October 25th, 1999
  187. CM Punk (WHT): 42 Days: August 23rd, 2009 - October 4th, 2009
  188. Randy Orton (WWE): 42 Days: April 26th, 2009 - June 7th, 2009
  189. Edge (WHT): 42 Days: April 26th, 2009 - June 7th, 2009
  190. Christian (ECW): 42 Days: April 26th, 2009 - June 7th, 2009
  191. Jeff Hardy (WWE): 42 Days: December 14th, 2008 - January 25th, 2009
  192. Mikey Whipwreck (ECW): 42 Days: October 28th, 1995 - December 9th, 1995
  193. Roman Reigns (WWE): 41 Days: December 14th, 2015 - January 24th, 2016
  194. Jeff Jarrett (WCW): 41 Days: May 29th, 2000 - July 9th, 2000
  195. The Rock (WWE): 41 Days: February 15th, 1999 - March 28th, 1999
  196. Ric Flair (WWE): 41 Days: September 1st, 1992 - October 12th, 1992
  197. Chris Jericho (WHT): 40 Days: February 21st, 2010 - April 2nd, 2010
  198. Goldberg (UC): 37 Days: February 27th, 2020 - April 4th, 2020
  199. Undertaker (WHT): 37 Days: April 1st, 2007 - May 8th, 2007
  200. Undertaker (WWE): 36 Days: May 23rd, 1999 - June 28th, 1999
  201. Albert Del Rio (WWE): 35 Days: August 14th, 2011 - September 18th, 2011
  202. Randy Orton (WHT): 35 Days: August 14th, 2011 - September 18th, 2011
  203. Batista (WWE): 35 Days: February 21st, 2010 - March 28th, 2010
  204. Mr. McMahon (ECW): 35 Days: April 29th, 2007 - June 3rd, 2007
  205. The Rock (WWE): 35 Days: July 21st, 2002 - August 25th, 2002
  206. Triple H (WWE): 35 Days: March 17th, 2002 - April 21st, 2002
  207. The Rock (WWE): 35 Days: February 25th, 2001 - April 1st, 2001
  208. Jerry Lynn (ECW): 35 Days: October 1st, 2000 - November 5th, 2000
  209. Triple H (WWE): 35 Days: May 21st, 2000 - June 25th, 2000
  210. The Rock (WCW): 34 Days: November 5th, 2001 - December 9th, 2001
  211. Sid (WWE): 34 Days: February 17th, 1997 - March 23rd, 1997
  212. Undertaker (WHT): 33 Days: March 30th, 2008 - May 2nd, 2008
  213. Randy Savage (WCW): 31 Days: November 26th, 1995 - December 27th, 1995
  214. Edge (WHT): 29 Days: June 1st, 2008 - June 30th, 2008
  215. Bret Hart (WCW): 29 Days: November 21st, 1999 - December 20th, 1999
  216. Brock Lesnar (WWE): 28 Days: January 1st, 2022 - January 29th, 2022
  217. Brock Lesnar (UC): 28 Days: July 14th, 2019 - August 11th, 2019
  218. Goldberg (UC): 28 Days: March 5th, 2017 - April 2nd, 2017
  219. Randy Orton (WWE): 28 Days: August 18th, 2013 - September 15th, 2013
  220. CM Punk (WWE): 28 Days: July 17th, 2011 - August 14th, 2011
  221. Christian (WHT): 28 Days: July 17th, 2011 - August 14th, 2011
  222. Rey Mysterio (WHT): 28 Days: June 20th, 2010 - July 18th, 2010
  223. Jeff Hardy (WHT): 28 Days: July 26th, 2009 - August 23rd, 2009
  224. Randy Orton (WHT): 28 Days: August 15th, 2004 - September 12th, 2004
  225. Big Show (WWE): 28 Days: November 17th, 2002 - December 15th, 2002
  226. Shawn Michaels (WHT): 28 Days: November 17th, 2002 - December 15th, 2002
  227. Hollywood Hogan (WWE): 28 Days: April 21st, 2002 - May 19th, 2002
  228. Ric Flair (WCW): 28 Days: March 14th, 1999 - April 11th, 1999
  229. The Iron Sheik (WWE): 28 Days: December 26th, 1983 - January 23rd, 1984
  230. Bret Hart (WCW): 27 Days: December 20th, 1999 - January 16th, 2000
  231. Ric Flair (WCW): 26 Days: December 27th, 1995 - January 22nd, 1996
  232. Shawn Michaels (WWE): 25 Days: January 19th, 1997 - February 13th, 1997
  233. Triple H (WWE): 24 Days: August 23rd, 1999 - September 16th, 1999
  234. Randy Orton (WWE): 22 Days: October 25th, 2020 - November 16th, 2020
  235. Sheamus (WWE): 22 Days: November 22nd, 2015 - December 14th, 2015
  236. Rob Van Dam (WWE): 22 Days: June 11th, 2006 - July 3rd, 2006
  237. Buddy Rogers (WWE): 22 Days: April 25th, 1963 - May 17th, 1963
  238. Bobby Lashley (WWE): 21 Days: January 29th, 2022 - February 19th, 2022
  239. Randy Orton (WWE): 21 Days: October 4th, 2009 - October 25th, 2009
  240. John Cena (WWE): 21 Days: September 13th, 2009 - October 4th, 2009
  241. John Cena (WHT): 21 Days: April 5th, 2009 - April 26th, 2009
  242. Edge (WWE): 21 Days: January 25th, 2009 - February 15th, 2009
  243. Edge (WWE): 21 Days: November 23rd, 2008 - December 14th, 2008
  244. Rob Van Dam (ECW): 21 Days: June 13th, 2006 - July 4th, 2006
  245. Edge (WWE): 21 Days: January 8th, 2006 - January 29th, 2006
  246. The Rock (WWE): 21 Days: April 30th, 2000 - May 21st, 2000
  247. Vader (WCW): 21 Days: July 12th, 1992 - August 2nd, 1992
  248. Ivan Koloff (WWE): 21 Days: January 18th, 1971 - February 8th, 1971
  249. John Cena (WWE): 20 Days: July 25th, 2011 - August 14th, 2011
  250. Chris Jericho (WHT): 20 Days: November 3rd, 2008 - November 23rd, 2008
  251. Booker T (WCW): 20 Days: July 30th, 2001 - August 19th, 2001
  252. Kevin Nash (WCW): 20 Days: August 28th, 2000 - September 17th, 2000
  253. Mankind (WWE): 20 Days: January 4th, 1999 - January 24th, 1999
  254. Randy Savage (WCW): 20 Days: January 22nd, 1996 - February 11th, 1996
  255. Chris Jericho (WCW): 15 Days: October 21st, 2001 - November 5th, 2001
  256. Kurt Angle (WWE): 15 Days: September 23rd, 2001 - October 8th, 2001
  257. Diamond Dallas Page (WCW): 15 Days: April 11th, 1999 - April 26th, 1999
  258. Mankind (WWE): 15 Days: January 31st, 1999 - February 15th, 1999
  259. John Cena (WWE): 14 Days: January 29th, 2017 - February 12th, 2017
  260. John Cena (WWE): 14 Days: September 18th, 2011 - October 2nd, 2011
  261. Diamond Dallas Page (WCW): 13 Days: April 26th, 1999 - May 9th, 1999
  262. David Arquette (WCW): 12 Days: April 25th, 2000 - May 7th, 2000
  263. Sting (WCW): 11 Days: December 28th, 1997 - January 8th, 1998
  264. Tazz (ECW): 9 Days: April 13th, 2000 - April 22nd, 2000
  265. Stan Stasiak (WWE): 9 Days: December 1st, 1973 - December 10th, 1973
  266. The Miz (WWE): 8 Days: February 21st, 2021 - March 1st, 2021
  267. Batista (WHT): 8 Days: October 26th, 2008 - November 3rd, 2008
  268. Bobby Lashley (ECW): 8 Days: June 3rd, 2007 - June 11th, 2007
  269. Booker T (WCW): 8 Days: September 17th, 2000 - September 25th, 2000
  270. Jeff Jarrett (WCW): 8 Days: May 7th, 2000 - May 15th, 2000
  271. Jeff Jarrett (WCW): 8 Days: April 16th, 2000 - April 24th, 2000
  272. Kevin Nash (WCW): 8 Days: December 27th, 1998 - January 4th, 1999
  273. Sabu (ECW): 8 Days: August 9th, 1997 - August 17th, 1997
  274. The Giant (WCW): 8 Days: October 29th, 1995 - November 6th, 1995
  275. Bray Wyatt (UC): 7 Days: August 23rd, 2020 - August 30th, 2020
  276. Vince Russo (WCW): 7 Days: September 25th, 2000 - October 2nd, 2000
  277. Ric Flair (WCW): 7 Days: May 15th, 2000 - May 22nd, 2000
  278. The Rock (WWE): 7 Days: January 24th, 1999 - January 31st, 1999
  279. Kurt Angle (WCW): 6 Days: July 24th, 2001 - July 30th, 2001
  280. Masato Tanaka (ECW): 6 Days: December 17th, 1999 - December 23rd, 1999
  281. Sting (WCW): 6 Days: March 11th, 1993 - March 17th, 1993
  282. Undertaker (WWE): 6 Days: November 27th, 1991 - December 3rd, 1991
  283. Christian (WHT): 5 Days: May 1st, 2011 - May 6th, 2011
  284. Kevin Nash (WCW): 5 Days: May 24th, 2000 - May 29th, 2000
  285. Lex Luger (WCW): 5 Days: August 4th, 1997 - August 9th, 1997
  286. Mr. McMahon (WWE): 4 Days: September 16th, 1999 - September 20th, 1999
  287. Sting (WCW): 3 Days: April 26th, 1999 - April 29th, 1999
  288. Bob Backlund (WWE): 3 Days: November 23rd, 1994 - November 26th, 1994
  289. Batista (WWE): 2 Days: June 7th, 2009 - June 9th, 2009
  290. Jeff Jarrett (WCW): 2 Days: May 22nd, 2000 - May 24th, 2000
  291. Sid Vicious (WCW): 2 Days: January 24th, 2000 - January 26th, 2000
  292. Finn Balor (UC): 1 Day: August 21st, 2016 - August 22nd, 2016
  293. Daniel Bryan (WWE): 1 Day: September 15th, 2013 - September 16th, 2013
  294. Diamond Dallas Page (WCW): 1 Day: April 24th, 2000 - April 25th, 2000
  295. Chris Benoit (WCW): 1 Day: January 16th, 2000 - January 17th, 2000
  296. Mankind (WWE): 1 Day: August 22nd, 1999 - August 23rd, 1999
  297. Randy Savage (WCW): 1 Day: July 11th, 1999 - July 12th, 1999
  298. Kane (WWE): 1 Day: June 28th, 1999 - June 29th, 1999
  299. Randy Savage (WCW): 1 Day: April 19th, 1998 - April 20th, 1998
  300. Bret Hart (WWE): 1 Day: February 16th, 1997 - February 17th, 1997
  301. Hulk Hogan (WWE): 1 Day: December 3rd, 1991 - December 4th, 1991
  302. Drew McIntyre (WHC): 0 Days: April 7th, 2024
  303. Seth "Freakin" Rollins (WWE): 0 Days: June 19th, 2016
  304. Roman Reigns (WWE): 0 Days: November 22nd, 2015
  305. Randy Orton (WHT): 0 Days: December 15th, 2013
  306. Daniel Bryan (WWE): 0 Days: August 18th, 2013
  307. Big Show (WHT): 0 Days: December 18th, 2011
  308. Rey Mysterio (WWE): 0 Days: July 25th, 2011
  309. Dolph Ziggler (WHT): 0 Days: February 18th, 2011
  310. John Cena (WWE): 0 Days: February 21st, 2010
  311. Ezekiel Jackson (ECW): 0 Days: February 16th, 2010
  312. Jeff Hardy (WHT): 0 Days: June 7th, 2009
  313. Triple H (WWE): 0 Days: October 7th, 2007
  314. Randy Orton (WWE): 0 Days: October 7th, 2007
  315. Chris Jericho (WCW): 0 Days: December 9th, 2001
  316. The Sandman (ECW): 0 Days: January 7th, 2001
  317. Ric Flair (WCW): 0 Days: May 29th, 2000
  318. Tommy Dreamer (ECW): 0 Days: April 22nd, 2000
  319. Yokozuna (WWE): 0 Days: April 4th, 1993
  320. Andre the Giant (WWE): 0 Days: February 5th, 1988
submitted by Throwaway73835288 to SquaredCircle [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 13:56 genericusername1904 H.G. WELLS’S, THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME (1933) VS. 1984 AND BRAVE NEW WORLD

H.G. WELLS’S, THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME (1933) VS. 1984 AND BRAVE NEW WORLD

ID, IX. MAIORES. V, CAL. IUNI. FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA.

I discovered this book by complete chance last year – a very old hardback copy was given to me as gift (in a situation which was certainly weighted with the most unlikely of synchronicities), “huh,” I thought, “it’s a first edition of H.G. Wells,” the book itself almost cannot be opened because it is so old and falling apart so I procured a text and audio file of the thing relatively easily and began to read. In hindsight not only for myself but I fancy for the generations of the last fifty years - in all totality, it is deeply strange that this book has not been more widely recognized or taught in schools, as like 1984 and Brave New World, as being the third contender (although technically the second, published one year after Huxley – seemingly written at the same time interestingly enough) in “visions of dystopia” – except that the book is not so much a vision of dystopia tomorrow but a vision of dystopia ‘today’ or rather ‘life as we know it’ of the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries (endless war, endless pandemics, economic and logistic chaos), narrated from the comfortable and reassuring position of a society far far in the future who have long since revised their culture and solved all of the causes of the problems and become a society of genius polymaths “with (every Man and Woman) the intellectual equal of the polymaths of the ancient world.”
Now, I do not mean here to seem to ‘sweet-talk’ the reader into rushing out and buying this book or to hold it up in the manner of those other books as if it were some ideological blueprint but instead to assay the thing in the natural context which seems to me to be universally unrealized and which presents itself to us as a thing which is plainly self-evident, that is: that in the depressing and miserable dichotomy of 1984 and Brave New World; two extremely atomizing and miserable narratives, that there is also – far more empowering – The Shape Of Things To Come wherein the miserable protagony and antagony of both 1984 and Brave New World might read as merely a footnote somewhere in the middle of the book as an example of the witless measures mankinds old master undertook to preserve their power in an untenable circumstance. In other words, we know all about 1984 as children; we have this drummed into our heads and we glean our cultural comprehension that dictators cannot be cliques of business people but only lone individuals, usually in military uniform, and then we graduate from that to Brave New World to gain a more sophisticated comprehension of the feckless consumerism and ‘passive egoism’ by which our society actually operates, but then we do not – as I argue we ought – continue along in our education with this third book which actually addresses the matters at hand at a more adult level.
For instance, here, from ‘The Breakdown Of Finance And Social Morale After Versailles’ (Book One, Chapter Twelve) addresses in a single paragraph the cause of our continual economic chaos (of which all crime and poverty and war originates from) and highlights the problem from which this chaos cannot be resolved yet could easily be resolved, “adjustment was left to blind and ill-estimated forces,” “manifestly, a dramatic revision of the liberties of enterprise was necessary, but the enterprising people who controlled politics (would be) the very last people to undertake such a revision,”

…the expansion of productive energy was being accompanied by a positive contraction of the distributive arrangements which determined consumption. The more efficient the output, the fewer were the wages-earners. The more stuff there was, the fewer consumers there were. The fewer the consumers, the smaller the trading profits, and the less the gross spending power of the shareholders and individual entrepreneurs. So buying dwindled at both ends of the process and the common investor suffered with the wages- earner. This was the "Paradox of Overproduction" which so troubled the writers and journalists of the third decade of the twentieth century.

It is easy for the young student to-day to ask "Why did they not adjust?" But let him ask himself who there was to adjust. Our modern superstructure of applied economic science, the David Lubin Bureau and the General Directors' Board, with its vast recording organization, its hundreds of thousands of stations and observers, directing, adjusting, apportioning and distributing, had not even begun to exist. Adjustment was left to blind and ill-estimated forces. It was the general interest of mankind to be prosperous, but it was nobody's particular interest to keep affairs in a frame of prosperity. Manifestly a dramatic revision of the liberties of enterprise was necessary, but the enterprising people who controlled politics, so far as political life was controlled, were the very last people to undertake such a revision.

There is a clever metaphor I fancy that Wells worked in to this for the ‘actual’ defacto controlling class of things, that is: not really the politicians (sorry to disappoint the Orwell and conspiracy fans) but instead the ‘Dictatorship of the Air’ which might easily read as the ‘Dictatorship of the Airwaves’ – in colloquial language, that being radio and then television. Certainly we might imagine Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner or Sumner Redstone (of yesterday) entering into honourable retirement as like the ‘dictators of the air’ of the very last days before the establishment of a one world state – in any case that is how things would work out, as the power of, say, Ted Turner to eradicate a political party in the United States – at any time he wishes – by simply green-lighting coverage of their bad actions relentlessly for months until revolution occurs is a real power of which no other institution possesses nor possesses any means of defence against, i.e. the ‘real power’ in our world to end a war or begin or war or end this or begin that is that power held by the organized press. This metaphor is somewhat of a more mature view, I think, than Wells earlier conception of the press in The Sleeper Awakes (1899) where the press of a dystopian future is visualized as a “babble machine” spreading circular nonsense to preoccupy the citizenry (although this is arguably a true representation of the mental processes of the Twitter and Facebook user, or of the general baby-speak and extremely infantile form of the news reports on the front page of the BBC News website) which is more or less what the press depicted as being in Brave New World also.
However the construction of sudden new realities (or sudden ‘actualities’) presented by the equation of interdependent technological innovations (i.e. the radio and the television in this instance) is mentioned early on in The Shape Of Things To Come in ‘How The Idea And Hope Of The Modern World State First Appeared’ (Book One, Chapter Two),

The fruitlessness of all these premature inventions is very easily explained. First in the case of the Transatlantic passage; either the earlier navigators who got to America never got back, or, if they did get back, they were unable to find the necessary support and means to go again before they died, or they had had enough of hardship, or they perished in a second attempt. Their stories were distorted into fantastic legends and substantially disbelieved. It was, indeed, a quite futile adventure to get to America until the keeled sailing ship, the science of navigation, and the mariner's compass had been added to human resources. (Then), in the matter of printing, it was only when the Chinese had developed the systematic manufacture of abundant cheap paper sheets in standard sizes that the printed book—and its consequent release of knowledge—became practically possible. Finally the delay in the attainment of flying was inevitable because before men could progress beyond precarious gliding it was necessary for metallurgy to reach a point at which the internal combustion engine could be made. Until then they could build nothing strong enough and light enough to battle with the eddies of the air.

In an exactly parallel manner, the conception of one single human community organized for collective service to the common weal had to wait until the rapid evolution of the means of communication could arrest and promise to defeat the disintegrative influence of geographical separation. That rapid evolution came at last in the nineteenth century, and it has been described already in a preceding chapter of this world history. Steam power, oil power, electric power, the railway, the steamship, the aeroplane, transmission by wire and aerial transmission followed each other very rapidly. They knit together the human species as it had never been knit before. Insensibly, in less than a century, the utterly impracticable became not merely a possible adjustment but an urgently necessary adjustment if civilization was to continue.

In other words, then, a global state (or, rather, such power in general held by the press as I see the analogy extending to them as being the ‘Dictatorship of the Airwaves’) was impossible to imagine and completely laughable before the technologies had stacked together to reveal as like in a simple piece of arithmetic which produced a single outcome of the equation; that no sooner had the technologies existed then the thing had become an actual reality – in that 1) unassailable political power had been unthinkingly dropped into the lap of the owners of the press, but that more importantly as consequence that therefore 2) mankind was subject to that power, that is: the situation existed the moment the technologies did – and this whether any living person had even realized it, as I think quite naturally all the time Men and Women invent things that they really have no notion of the fullest or most optimal uses of (“nothing is needed by fools, for: they do not understand how to use anything but are in want of everything,” Chrysippus), e.g. in no metaphor the television was quite literally invented as a ‘ghost box’ to commune with ghosts imagined to reveal themselves by manipulating the black and white of the static until someone else had the idea that there was at least one other use for that contraption.
It is quite strange, also, that in contemporary times we have for ages been heavily propagandized ‘against’ the idea of a “one world state” as if, say, all the crimes and fecklessness that have gone on in our lifetimes are somehow secretly building towards the creation of such a thing – not a thing you would naturally conclude from an observation of those events nor a thing advocated for by anybody (insofar as I have ever heard) but it is a thing which would be the first logical response to ‘preventing’ such crimes from ever occurring again – such as like the already widely practiced concept of a Senate-Style Federation of Sovereign States rather than a hundred or so mutually antagonistic polities capable of bombing themselves or screwing up their economies and creating waves of refugees or mass starvation or pandemics, and so on. For instance, All Egypt is dependent on the flow of the Nile which originates in what is today another country, that other country recently decimated the flow of the Nile by gumming up the Nile with a Hydroelectric Dam; such an outcome would not occur if the total mass of the land itself was governed as the single interconnected economic and environmental system that it is in physical reality of which, when divided along arbitrary borderlines, there is no means to govern the entirety of the region in an amicable and prosperous manner for all as a whole and no recourse to the otherwise intolerable situation but War which is unlikely to occur – as most Nations are comprised of civilized peoples who rightly loath the concept of War – but it is the single and unavoidable outcome to resolve such a situation until that situation has dragged on for decades, causing immense suffering, until it reaches that point of desperation – the matter of Palestine and Israel, fresh to my mind in these days, raises itself also.
Of the matter of War itself, in ‘The Direct Action Of The Armament Industries In Maintaining War Stresses’ (Book One, Chapter Eleven), Wells relays in 1933 what United States President Eisenhower would later remark in 1961 in his farewell address of the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex; albeit far more analytically on Wells part, that: it is not so much the ‘desire to harm’ on the part of the armament industries which sees them engage in unnecessary build-up of weapons stockpiles but that it is simply their business to produce, to stockpile, produce more deadly variants and stockpile the more deadly variants and sell off their old stockpiles to whomsoever rings their doorbell; for instance the on-going War in Ukraine is no different in this regard to the Viet Cong and NATO Warfare in Vietnam in that massive quantities of cheap munitions were necessary for the war to be fought in the first place and massive quantities of munitions happened to exist as a by-product of the Armaments Industries to be dumped onto the warring parties in order to facilitate their macabre impulses at the expense of the citizenry; both at their cost in terms of the debt taken on to procure the weaponry on the part of their governments and in terms of their lives when the weaponry was utilized to the outcome of massive loss of life of a single peoples within a bordered space – a thing of no value to themselves. Simply put, albeit in a very simplistic reduction to the bare basics: the War would not reached such catastrophic inhuman proportions without massive quantities of cheap Armaments that otherwise sat taking up warehouse space for more valuable Armaments on the part of the producer and seller.

In a perpetual progress in the size and range of great guns, in a vast expansion of battleships that were continually scrapped in favour of larger or more elaborate models, (Armament Firms) found a most important and inexhaustible field of profit. The governments of the world were taken unawares, and in a little while the industry, by sound and accepted methods of salesmanship, was able to impose its novelties upon these ancient institutions with their tradition of implacable mutual antagonism. It was realized very soon that any decay of patriotism and loyalty would be inimical to this great system of profits, and the selling branch of the industry either bought directly or contrived to control most of the great newspapers of the time, and exercised a watchful vigilance on the teaching of belligerence in schools. Following the established rules and usages for a marketing industrialism, and with little thought of any consequences but profits, the directors of these huge concerns built up the new warfare that found its first exposition in the Great War of 1914-18, and gave its last desperate and frightful convulsions in the Polish wars of 1940 and the subsequent decades.

Even at its outset in 1914-18 this new warfare was extraordinarily uncongenial to humanity. It did not even satisfy man's normal combative instincts. What an angry man wants to do is to beat and bash another living being, not to be shot at from ten miles distance or poisoned in a hole. Instead of drinking delight of battle with their peers, men tasted all the indiscriminating terror of an earthquake. The war literature stored at Atacama, to which we have already referred, is full of futile protest against the horror, the unsportsmanlike quality, the casual filthiness and indecency, the mechanical disregard of human dignity of the new tactics. But such protest itself was necessarily futile, because it did not go on to a clear indictment of the forces that were making, sustaining and distorting war. The child howled and wept and they did not even attempt to see what it was had tormented it.

To us nowadays it seems insane that profit-making individuals and companies should have been allowed to manufacture weapons and sell the apparatus of murder to all comers. But to the man of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it seemed the most natural thing in the world. It had grown up in an entirely logical and necessary way, without any restraint upon the normal marketing methods of peace-time commerce, from the continually more extensive application of new industrial products to warfare. Even after the World War catastrophe, after that complete demonstration of the futility of war, men still allowed themselves to be herded like sheep into the barracks, to be trained to consume, and be consumed, by new lines of slaughter goods produced and marketed by the still active armament traders. And the accumulation of a still greater and still more dangerous mass of war material continued.

The book is, if the reader has likely already gathered from the excerpts, not written in the style of a protagonal narrative; i.e. not as a story, i.e. no hero and no villain, but as a sort of a Historia Augusta – that is really the most fitting comparison I think of when trying to describe this to a new reader (or perhaps J.J. Scarisbrick’s Henry VIII), that is to say it is written ‘as’ a History in the classical style we are familiar with from the better of the ancient writers, as like Appian or Cassius Dio, but unlike Suetonius or Tacitus it is absent of the sloppy hinging of all bad things on the highly personalized propaganda ad hominem (i.e. blame the fall of empire on one guy) that goes in those narrative works as we are typically familiar with them.
It is, of course, a work a fiction; although Wells did predict World War Two beginning in late 1939-1940 (although he had Poland putting up much better and longer of a fight against the Germans) and various other innovations, beginning from his own day with a true account of events prior to his own day – giving us a valuable account of affairs and actors prior to 1933 which would otherwise not come easily to any of us to discover. But the book, ultimately, is vehicle for the transmission and discussion of these societal (i.e. social, economic, industrial, logistic) matters presented to the audience of the day fresh, in their own minds, from the abject horror recently witnessed in World War One – and the economic catastrophes of which Roosevelts reforms had not yet come into tangible reality (i.e. relief for the poor, public works projects such as the motorways across America) as is discussed in that other seemingly little known H.G. Wells literary offering in his face-to-face interview with Josef Stalin the following year in 1934 (something which I think is of far more historical value than say, Nixon and Frost or Prince Andrew and Emily Maitlis), so as to ‘avert’ another crisis and pluck from the ether a seemingly alternate trajectory of where Mankind might at last get its act together. This ‘novel’ (thought it seems strange to call it that) ought be read, I would advise, in conjunction with ‘The Sleeper Awakes’ (1899) and also the (actually very depressing – I would not advise it) short-story prequel ‘A Story Of The Days To Come’ (1897) – set in that same universe – which, perhaps it is because I am English, seems to me to be a black horror show of the reality that we actually find ourselves living in this far into an actually dystopic future – or perhaps yet with the ‘strange windmills’ powering the mega cities that this a future yet to come (no pun intended); the broken speech, the babble machines, the miserable condition of the Working Class and their consumption of pre-packaged soft bread, the desire to flee the urban sprawl into the dilapidated countryside and make a little life in a run-down house with tacky wallpaper peeling away … ah, forgive me, my point is that ‘our condition’; i.e. those of us literate in English, is quite analogous to the condition of the central characters in those two stories; a culture dulled intellectually to the point that they can barely speak or think, being appraised and assayed by ourselves; those of us simply literate, as to render our commentary stuck as to seem as mutually alien as like Caesar in Gaul. However, it is in the context of the frame given to us in ‘The Shape Of Things To Come’ that we might gain a degree of sanity about this self-same situation; to study and lean into that dispassionate quality as to discern the nature of things as they are and recognize how important this quality is in relation to Well’s ultimate outcome for the best possible position of Humankind far far future, that is: that of Humankind’s vital intellectual capacity, and that the most striking message of STC, beyond all we have mentioned in this little overview, is that intellectual capacity in and of itself.
For example, when we consider the ‘actuality’ of the power of Turner or perhaps Zuckerberg in his heyday, for instance, we consider a power fallen into a Mans lap by an accidental stacking of disparate technologies created not by himself but of which possess a power utterly dependent in that same equation upon on a population being ‘witless’ in the first place and so led slavishly by the “babble machines”. However you cut it, reader, the great uplifting of Humankind to a standard of autonomy and intellectual prowess – not held by an elite but possessed by All People – is a thing both intrinsically self-sufficient within our grasp for our own selves and is certainly the prerequisite for political matters in that intellectual capacity of the voting public determines entirely whether a public is tricked or foolish and gets themselves into trouble by undertaking some obvious error or whether they are immune to such trickery and foolishness in the first place and that their energies and time are spent on more valuable pursuits. It seems to me that our contemporary society has done away with the notion of good character through intellect and that we live with the outcome of this; being shepherded by emotional manipulation and brute force because our society at large is treated as if we lacked the verbal and intellectual toolsets to understand anything else – moreover possessing no means to discern whether or not what is forced onto us is right or wrong; truth or lies, and so on. Such a society as this, again it seems plain to me, is ‘any’ dystopia because it is the baseline composition for ‘all’ dystopia; as like the foolish dogma of an out-dated ideology for example rests itself upon a large enough contingent of the public being either treated as if they were or in fact are “too foolish” to discuss or think a thing through, so a dogma is poured over them like concrete creating, in turn, intolerable circumstances as the dogma, tomorrow, becomes out-dated and suddenly instructs them to do foolish things, as like in the “Banality Of Evil” (read: Hannah Arendt) as the character in all serious perpetrators of inhumanity who insist, with a confused expression on their faces, that they were just doing their job – and this ‘quality’, of extreme ignorance, is the composition of the culture where such ‘evil actions’ occur.
I mean here that in STC we have on one hand a very in-depth account, very serious reading, to graduate the reader out of the depressive, atomizing, disempowering, conspiratorial milieu and mire of ‘life’ presented to us in 1984 and Brave New World, but that we have at the same time the very resonant harmonics that one does not need to “wait around for a distant future utopia” to “solve all the problems” but that the tools to do so are well within our grasp at any time we so choose and of which such an undertaking constitutes the foundation stones and tapestries of that future utopia which, I think, could be said to “meet us half-way” in many of these matters, as like we reach forward and they reach back and then those in the past reach forward and we in the present reach back; that is anyway what it is to learn from the past and anyway the answer to “why the Grandfather sews the seeds for trees from whose fruits he will never eat.”
Valete.

ID, IX. MAIORES. V, CAL. IUNI. FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA.

FULL TEXT ON GUTENBERG OF H.G. WELLS ‘THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME’ (1933)
https://preview.redd.it/9l7yl9hx8y3d1.jpg?width=490&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d5a4109fb8e2193b94a6e244d92d4ec5b7b84a7
https://preview.redd.it/37vvsroy8y3d1.jpg?width=740&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e62ef5e11c1c4222d6f99ffebe82b3dd706cbc2f
submitted by genericusername1904 to 2ndStoicSchool [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 13:48 Thin-Pool-8025 If you had to choose between Santino Marella winning the 2011 Royal Rumble or Elimination Chamber 2012, which would you pick?

If you had to choose between Santino Marella winning the 2011 Royal Rumble or Elimination Chamber 2012, which would you pick? submitted by Thin-Pool-8025 to Wrasslin [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 12:28 InLawsWantMeGone My (32M) sister in law and her husband told my partner (30F) to consider breaking off our 10 year relationship. We have a meeting later today to discuss this drama. How can I navigate this uncomfortable conversation?

tldr; while my partner was visiting her sister last weekend, my sister in-law and her husband told her to break up with me. Now I don't trust them. We have a meeting today to discuss how to move forward. Help!
Background:
My (32M) partner (30F) and I met in 2011 at university. We kissed for the first time, and started a relationship in 2012. It was beautiful, so so beautiful. We were two inseparable love birds. The amazing memories from those years will last me a lifetime. In 2015 we started facing challenges in our communication. We failed to resolve them and ultimately broke up/reconciled twice between 2015 and 2018.
During the breakup we tried to live our lives, forget each other, meet other people. She even moved to another country and had a great time there. We had minimal communication while broken up: sharing only major milestones like graduation, or the random message when she got a tattoo etc. Eventually she moved back to the same country. We started talking again and agreed that we would fight to make our relationship work. We worked out our issues. Since 2018, we've been learning and growing together. We've had arguments, especially when adjusting to living together. Things are still not PERFECT but I was convinced they are good, until last weekend.....
The issue:
My GF visited her sister (35F), the husband and their 2 daughters. When she came back, she wasn't in a good mood. She started picking a fight with me about dishes, laundry and other small things. I was shocked. We didn't see each other for a weekend, and this is the hello I got. I had actually done 3 loads of laundry that weekend. I cleaned her lunch boxes and pots from the previous week that had started developing mould. The fight was very unreasonable. Ultimately she told me that she was doubting/confused about our relationship. I'm thinking: WTF!!
It's not the first time we fight after she talks to her sister. So I dug and she eventually told me that in laws wanted her to reflect on breaking up with me. It went far. They offered her a place to stay if she would need a few months to process the breakup. I became more confused the more details I learned. At family events they are always friendly. When I got the impression that they don't like me, my partner assured me that they all thought I'm a great guy. Well, it's now clear that although I'm a great guy, just not the right guy for their "little sister." I've known this woman much longer than the sister has known her husband. The arguments they made are along the lines of: I'm holding her back from her dreams, I have no direction in life, cultural differences. A suggestion was made (not sure if by my GF or them) that I may be manipulating her. As a result, I find it hard to discuss with her now because, will she just say I'm manipulating her when I share my views? According to my gf, they reiterated that I'm a nice person, just not the person for her. Part of it could be financial. I'm not close to f.e. having enough savings to purchase a house (which I know is her dream, it's mine too, I'm just not there yet).
Anyway, we're meeting later today, all four of us. I don't trust them anymore. I don't feel comfortable with my partner visiting them. I don't want to visit them either. I don't think I even want to talk to them at family events anymore. I feel angry, disgusted, humiliated, and stabbed in the back. I have so many questions. Who else did they talk to? Other siblings, the parents? How long have they been thinking this? Is my girlfriend telling me the full truth or is she protecting her family by withholding certain information? (she's done this in the past) It's a mess.
Some other context:
The situation now:
Honestly, I don't know how to approach the conversation. How would you do it? What would you ask? What would you want to have as outcome? Is this talk even healthy/necessary?
The truth is, if I could, I would never talk to them again, I miss nothing in my life by avoiding them. But how do I ensure that i don't push my GF from her family and create more resentment either towards me or the sister?
If you read this far, I appreciate it, and happy to hear your thoughts!
submitted by InLawsWantMeGone to relationship_advice [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 12:17 RobertBartus The Equal Weighted S&P 500 is underperforming the S&P 500 by the largest margin since the Global Financial Crisis

The Equal Weighted S&P 500 is underperforming the S&P 500 by the largest margin since the Global Financial Crisis submitted by RobertBartus to EconomyCharts [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 12:04 Long_Alfalfa_720 The March of Dictatorial Ambitions: which nation will follow China's fate and why it concerns You?

The March of Dictatorial Ambitions: which nation will follow China's fate and why it concerns You?
https://preview.redd.it/8w2yh5syox3d1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3337c19e7ebea7dcafd0f1b5c5d0f61c9e31831
In the opening article of our series, we unveiled the existence of a global network of anti-cult organizations contributing to the creation of a worldwide digital concentration camp.
We demonstrated how these organizations play a crucial role in the process of dehumanization, labeling certain groups, organizations, or nations as a "threat to society." We explained that this happens through the branding of these groups as part of "totalitarian sects" or "destructive cults," leading to widespread intolerance and discrimination fueled and supported by the media.
We showed that these actions shape public opinion to see these organizations as harmful, justifying their persecution. We revealed that, in this way, the people involved can be persecuted and punished while the public remains convinced that the authorities are taking necessary measures against the "offenders."
As a result, the genocide against those different or inconvenient for the government goes unnoticed. We explored the case of the Chinese Falun Gong movement as an example of how those in power can commit cruel and inhuman actions against ordinary citizens while society stands compliant and passive in the face of these oppressions.
You might think that these actions only take place in China, but you are mistaken.
Let's see what the situation is like in another country violating human rights and attempting to impose a dictatorship—Russia.
Everything began in 2015 with the legal introduction of the "undesirable organization" status.
An undesirable organization, according to the official formulation, is a "non-governmental organization that has been recognized as undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation"—a foreign or international non-governmental organization whose activities may pose a threat to the constitutional order, defense capability, or state security of the Russian Federation, in accordance with Article 3.1 of Federal Law No. 272-FZ of December 28, 2012. Such organizations are banned from operating on the territory of the Russian Federation, with administrative and criminal actions prescribed for violating this ban.
This law can lead to various human rights violations. Here are some potential consequences:
  • The law can be used to close NGOs that criticize the government or defend rights that are inconvenient for the authorities.
  • Certain NGOs often play an important role in disseminating information and providing a platform for debate and criticism. Banning these organizations can lead to self-censorship and reduced access to alternative sources of information.
  • Many NGOs provide legal assistance to individuals whose rights have been violated. Shutting down such organizations can leave many people without access to legal protection and support.
  • Creating a climate of fear and uncertainty among human rights defenders.
  • Many NGOs organize cultural and social events that enrich society and promote dialogue between different groups. Shutting down such organizations can reduce opportunities for cultural and social participation of citizens.
As of May 16, 2024, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation has designated 161 foreign and international non-governmental organizations as "undesirable" in Russia.
Here are just a few examples of numerous actions taken against the undesirable organizations:
  • In 2001, the Moscow City Court attempted to ban the "Krishna Consciousness Movement" as "extremist," although this decision was later overturned. However, the struggle against Krishna followers did not end, and there are continuous attempts to restrict them. One such attempt is Siberian prosecutors' desire to ban the sacred Indian book "Bhagavad Gita."
  • In 2017, the Supreme Court of Russia designated the Christian denomination "Jehovah's Witnesses" as "extremist." Nine Jehovah's Witnesses were sentenced to long prison terms. Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia previously claimed to have been tortured by police who raided their homes. According to the group's Russian website, Russia had approximately 175,000 active believers at the time of the ban. Since then, raids, interrogations, and imprisonments of adherents have occurred relatively regularly.
  • On May 4, 2024, a citizen in Russia was convicted for meditating. The Moscow court ordered two months of detention for a Falun Gong practitioner under the controversial law against "participating in activities of undesirable organizations."
How can an organization become "undesirable"?
To track the methods used to ban organizations in Russia, learn more in our next article.
submitted by Long_Alfalfa_720 to FreeGuestPosting [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 12:02 Normodox A Slush Fund for Radical Protesters?

The profusion of identical green tents at this spring’s anti-Israel protests struck many as odd. “Why is everybody’s tent the same?,” asked New York mayor Eric Adams. Like others, the mayor suspected “a well-concerted organizing effort” driving the protests. More recent reporting shows a concerted push behind the Gaza protest movement. But it is not as simple as a single organization secretly rallying protesters or buying tents. Instead, the movement’s most determined activists represent a network of loosely linked far-left groups. Some are openly affiliated with well-known progressive nonprofits; others work in the shadows.
The movement also draws on diverse but generous sources of financial backing. Those funding streams may soon be augmented by the federal government. As I chronicled last year in a Manhattan Institute report, “The Big Squeeze: How Biden’s Environmental Justice Agenda Hurts the Economy and the Environment,” the administration’s massive program of environmental justice grants seems designed to prioritize the funding of highly ideological local groups. The Inflation Reduction Act, for example, earmarks $3 billion for “environmental and climate justice block grants” intended for local nonprofits. Today, hundreds of far-left political groups include language about environmental issues and “climate justice” in their mission statements. If just a fraction of planned grants flows to such groups, the effect will be a gusher of new funding for radical causes.
As the Gaza protests spread across U.S. college campuses, many observers noted an eerie uniformity among them. From one campus to the next, protesters operated in disciplined cadres, keeping their faces covered and using identical rote phrases as they refused to talk with reporters. The Atlantic noted the strangeness of seeing elite college students “chanting like automatons.” Students held up keffiyeh scarves or umbrellas to block the view of prying cameras and linked arms to halt the movements of outsiders. At Columbia University and elsewhere, protesters formed “liberated zones,” from which “Zionists” were excluded. Around the edges of the encampments, the more militaristic activists donned helmets and goggles and carried crude weapons, apparently eager to mix it up with police or counter-protesters. We’ve seen these tactics before—notably during the “mostly peaceful” Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, when full-time agitators helped ignite riots, set up a police-free (and violence-plagued) zone in Seattle, and laid nightly siege to Portland, Oregon’s federal courthouse.
In a remarkable work of reporting, Park MacDougald recently traced the tangled roots of organizations backing pro-jihad protests, both on and off campuses. These include Antifa and other networks of anonymous anarchists, along with “various communist and Marxist-Leninist groups, including the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), and the International ANSWER coalition,” MacDougald writes. Higher up the food chain, we find groups openly supported by America’s growing class of super-rich tech execs or the anti-capitalist heirs of great fortunes. For example, retired tech mogul Neville Roy Singham, who is married to Code Pink founder Jodie Evans, funds The People’s Forum, a lavish Manhattan resource center for far-left groups. As the Columbia protests intensified, the center urged members to head uptown to “support our students.” Following the money trail of other protest groups, MacDougald finds connections to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation, and—surprising no one—the George Soros-backed Tides Foundation.
Of course, the current wave of anti-Israel protests also involves alliances with pro-Hamas organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine. Last November, Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies testified to the House Ways and Means Committee that SJP and similar groups have deep ties to global terrorist organizations, including Hamas.
For many keffiyeh-wearing protestors, however, a recently professed concern for Palestinians is just the latest in a long list of causes they believe justify taking over streets and college quads. In Unherd, Mary Harrington dubs this medley of political beliefs the “omnicause,” writing that “all contemporary radical causes seem somehow to have been absorbed into one.” Today’s leftist activists share an interlocking worldview that sees racism, income inequality, trans intolerance, climate change, alleged police violence, and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts all as products of capitalism and “colonialism.” Therefore, the stated rationale for any individual protest is a stand-in for the real battle: attacking Western society and its institutions.
In the U.S., this type of general-purpose uprising goes back at least to the riots at the 1999 meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. In those protests, mainstream liberal factions—including labor unions and environmentalists—were joined by “black bloc” anarchists and other radicals eager to engage in “direct action” against police. That pattern—relatively moderate demonstrators providing a friendly envelope for hard-core disruptors—formed the template for many later protests: the Occupy Wall Street encampments in 2011, demonstrations following the police shooting of Michael Brown in 2014, 2016’s Standing Rock anti-pipeline movement, and of course, the calamitous summer of 2020.
These uprisings were not entirely spontaneous. In some cases, activists spend months planning mass actions—for example, against economic summits or political conventions—and can recruit street fighters from across the country. In others, an event, such as George Floyd’s death, sparks popular protests involving neophyte demonstrators. Those attract far-left activists, who swoop in to organize and expand the struggle, often tilting it toward more radical action.
That has certainly been the case at the college Gaza-paloozas. At Columbia, the New York Times spotted a woman old enough to be a student’s grandmother in the thick of the action as protesters barricaded that school’s Hamilton Hall. The woman was 63-year-old Lisa Fithian, a lifetime activist, who Portland’s alternative weekly Street Roots approvingly calls “a trainer of mass rebellion.” A counter-protester trying to block the pro-Hamas demonstrators told NBC News, “She was right in the middle of it, instructing them how to better set up the barriers.” Fithian told the Times she’d been invited to train students in protest safety and “general logistics.” She claims to have taken part in almost every major U.S. protest movement going back to the 1999 “Battle in Seattle.”
America’s radical network has plenty of Lisa Fithians, with the time and resources to travel the country educating newcomers about the “logistics” of disruptive protests. And these activists appear to have played key roles in the college occupations. The New York City Police Department says nearly half the demonstrators arrested on the Columbia and City University of New York (CUNY) campuses on April 30 were not affiliated with the schools. One hooded Hamilton Hall occupier—photographed scuffling with a Columbia custodian before getting arrested—turned out to be 40-year-old James Carlson, heir to a large advertising fortune. According to the New York Post, Carlson lives in a $2.3 million Park Slope townhouse and has a long rap sheet. For example, in 2005, he was arrested in San Francisco during the violent “West Coast Anti-Capitalist Mobilization and March Against the G8.” (Those charges were dropped.)
For a quarter-century now, Antifa and other anarchist networks have worked to refine tactics and share lessons following each major action. At Columbia, UCLA, and other schools, authorities found printouts of a “Do-It Yourself Occupation Guide” and similar documents. The young campus radicals are eager to learn from their more experienced elders. And, like the high-achieving students they are, they follow directions carefully. MacDougald asked Kyle Shideler, the director for homeland security and counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy, about the mystery of the identical tents. There was no need for a central group to distribute hundreds of tents, Shideler said. Instead, “the organizers told [students] to buy a tent, and sent around a Google Doc with a link to that specific tent on Amazon. So they all went out and bought the same tent.”
In other words, America’s radical class has gotten very skilled at recruiting and instructing new activists—even from among the ranks of elite college students with a good deal to lose. How much more could this movement accomplish with hundreds of millions in federal dollars flooding activist groups around the country?
From its first week in office, the Biden administration has trumpeted its goal to funnel more environmental spending toward “disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized,” partly by issuing grants to grassroots organizations. Previous environmental justice (EJ) grant programs were small in scope. But, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022, a huge pool of grant money became available. EPA administrator Michael Regan told reporters, “We’re going from tens of thousands of dollars to developing and designing a program that will distribute billions.”
More than a year and a half later, it remains hard to nail down just where the Biden administration’s billions in EJ grants will wind up. Money is being distributed through a confusing variety of programs, and the process of identifying recipients is ongoing. To help outsource the job of sifting through proposals, the EPA last year designated 11 institutions as “Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmakers.” These groups are empowered to make subgrants directly to community organizations, under streamlined EPA oversight. In all, the Biden administration has entrusted these outfits with distributing a staggering $600 million in funding. The money is expected to start flowing this summer.
The EPA’s grantmakers include a number of educational institutions and left-leaning nonprofits. For example, the EPA chose Fordham University as its lead grantmaker in the New York region. Fordham, in turn, lists as partners two nonprofits that oppose immigration enforcement. (One, the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, states on its website: “NJAIJ believes in the human right to migrate, regardless of citizenship or political status.”) Neither group claims expertise in environmental issues. Given that the IRA’s eligibility requirements for EJ grants are extremely vague, however, perhaps that’s not a problem. Almost any activity that could help “spur economic opportunity for disadvantaged communities” (in the words of Biden’s EJ executive order) might qualify.
Perhaps the most prominent—and problematic—EPA grantmaker is the Berkeley, California-based Climate Justice Alliance. The CJA is a consortium of mostly far-left activist groups. It describes its mission as working for “regenerative economic solutions and ecological justice—under a framework that challenges capitalism and both white supremacy and hetero-patriarchy.” The group is a vigorous proponent of the omnicause, embracing almost every left-wing concern as a manifestation of climate change. For example, the CJA website proclaims: “The path to climate justice travels through a free Palestine.” MacDougald notes that the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, one of CJA’s affiliated groups, “organized an illegal anti-Israel protest in the Capitol Rotunda in December at which more than 50 activists were arrested.”
The CJA website also includes a section dedicated to the cause known as Stop Cop City. It refers to an effort to halt the construction of an 85-acre police and firefighter training center outside Atlanta. Rag-tag activists from around the country have gathered around the facility since 2021. They have repeatedly battled with police—sometimes with fireworks and Molotov cocktails—and used bolt cutters to enter the site and torch construction equipment. (CJA’s Stop Cop City page features a cartoon illustration of three childlike activists; one brandishes bolt cutters.) The group also backs a legal defense fund for activists arrested in attacks on the training center or in other protests. For those looking for more inspiration, CJA links to an interview with former Black Panther and self-described revolutionary Angela Davis.
The Alliance is not an ideological outlier in Biden’s EJ coalition. On the contrary, when the White House assembled its White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC), a panel of outside experts meant to provide “horizon-expanding EJ advice and recommendations,” it chose CJA co-chair Elizabeth Yeampierre to help lead the committee. Like other members of the panel, she sees environmental issues through an ideological, not a scientific, lens. “Climate change is the result of a legacy of extraction, of colonialism, of slavery,” Yeampierre told Yale Environment 360. As a group, radical EJ activists tend not to focus on pragmatic ways to reduce pollution and carbon emissions; for them, the real goal is overturning what they see as an exploitative economic and political system. Since these are the voices the White House chose to help shape its EJ policies, we can assume this worldview will dominate grantmaking decisions.
In February 2023, House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer, along with fellow committee member Pat Fallon, wrote to EPA administrator Regan asking for more information on the EPA’s grant programs. They noted that the EPA’s own studies of EJ grants issued in previous years showed sloppy supervision. According to an EPA report, an earlier version of the program funded projects that did “not logically lead to the desired environmental and/or public health [result].” Without better oversight and more clearly defined goals, the congressmen wrote, the EPA’s EJ grant machine risks becoming simply a “slush fund for far-left organizations.”
Since then, the administration has done little to reassure skeptics. To the contrary, the EPA has put at least one far-left organization—CJA—in charge of distributing $50 million in grant money. No doubt, many of the EPA grants will go to worthwhile projects. But money is fungible. A group that gets a large grant to, say, clean up dirty parks or teach children about recycling will also be able to hire more staff and divert more resources to political action.
With graduation behind them, most of the anti-Israel college protesters have stowed away their keffiyehs and moved on to summer vacations or internships. But the peripatetic activists who helped guide and intensify those uprisings are doubtless already planning their next actions. After all, two political conventions are looming. This fall, the college protests will likely flare up again, though by then perhaps focused on a different facet of the omnicause. And, with hundreds of millions in fresh funding flowing through the activist ecosystem, the groups that quietly nurture extremists—like those who firebombed “Cop City,” or who chant “Intifada Revolution!,” or who block bridges in the name of “climate”—will be more emboldened than ever.
A Slush Fund for Radical Protesters? City Journal (city-journal.org)
​
submitted by Normodox to BeneiYisraelNews [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 11:59 Fantastic-Frame4628 21(f) when will my chronic health issue resolve

I've been sick for over a year Will it ever get better?
submitted by Fantastic-Frame4628 to vedicastrology [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 11:35 MaddoxOG Historia de Tiendas Aurrerá

He visto que las personas no tienen información verídica del surgimiento de la cadena abarrotera más popular de México, así que les quisiera compartir.
Mamá Lucha es un mero personaje y no debería ser designado así, cual pinche Mamá Lucha, Mamasota Luz María, nacida de padres agricultores en Arandas Jalisco; cosechó agave hasta los trece años, un día sin aviso alguno tomó un camión hacia el antiguo Distrito Federal en la década de los 60 a sus dieciséis años, tras adaptarse a la vida cotadina estudió comercio en un colegio de la colonia Narvarte.
Para los años setenta comenzó con una cadena de comercio de abarrotes (que se llaman así porque son bodegas que “abarrotan” productos de uso común), la primer sucursal de la llamada Bodega Aurrerá S. de R.L. de C.V se fundó en la esquina de Simón Bolívar con Chimalpopoca en la Colonia Obrera, actual Ciudad de México.
Lejos de ser un ejemplo de mujer mexicana emprendedora y de implementar una metodología que sería clave para cadenas como; Wal-Mart, Soriana, el antiguo Gigante, Carrefour, etc. Era una señora de alto ejemplar, nalgona de ojos amielados, acostumbraba a presentarse a las juntas de socios con trajes de sastre echos a la medida, recalcaban entre el tejido su silueta pronunciada, una cintura perfilada, el culo bien puesto con sus curvas bien definidas, entre las piernas esa curvita de cuando los muslos se meten entre el culo, una línea perfecta en su abdomen, pues era de Jalisco la señora, estaba riquísima.
María Luz murió el 27 de Agosto de 2012 a los 68 años de edad por un ataque cardiaco, sus restos residen en el Panteón de Dolores en la CDMX.
Naturalmente nada de lo que digo es puta verdad pero si así fuera uno estaría muy orgulloso, pero bueno, fantasear tampoco es pecado.
Queda claro, de cualquier forma, que Mamá Lucha si está bien ricota y si te anda quitando lo pendejo.
Dios los bendiga, adjunto abajo imagen que inspiró todo este cuento.
submitted by MaddoxOG to mexico [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 10:39 Bi0_B1lly 366 DAYS OF HORROR - MAY / BODY HORROR & HOME INVASION MONTH

Follow the link for last month's recap: April 2024 - Psychological Thrillers & Body Horror!
May was Body Horror & Home Invasion Month!
In a first for the marathon, I watched a newly released show that coincided with this month's theme, Parasyte: The Grey... Regarding how it's data will be inputted, I will be logging each episode oj the day they were watched, but the entire show will be marked as 'one film' for the tally, with all of its runtime going into the total as per usual.
With that out of the way, here's this month's line-up!
May 01 - When a Stranger Calls (1979) 97min
May 02 - The Fly (1986) 96min
May 03 - High Tension (2003) 90min
May 04 - Crimes of the Future (2022) 107min
May 05 - Eden Lake (2008) 91min
May 06 - The Human Centipede (2009) 92min
May 07 - Funny Games (2007) 111min
May 08 - Hellraiser (1987) 94min
May 09 - Final Destination (2000) 98min
May 10 - Saw (2004) 103min
May 11 - Eraserhead (1977) 89min
May 12 - Mother's Day (1980) 90min
May 13 - Splinter (2008) 82min
May 14 - Teeth (2007) 94min
May 15 - The Purge (2013) 86min
May 16 - Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989) 67min
May 17 - Don't Breathe (2016) 89min
May 18 - Videodrome (1983) 88min
May 19 - The Strangers: Chapter 1 (2024) 91min
May 20 - The Blob (1988) 95min
May 21 - Hush (2016) 82min
May 22 - American Mary (2012) 102min
May 23 - Knock Knock (2015) 99min
May 24 - A Serbian Film (2010) 103min
May 25 - Sleep Tight (2011) 97min
May 26 - Thanatomorphose (2012) 100min
May 27 - Contracted (2013) 84min
May 28 - The Brood (1979) 92min
May 29 - Inside (2016) 85min
May 30 - Bug (2006) 98min
May 31 - Street Trash (1987) 100min
Current Entries: 48
Current Runtime: 4,459min (74hr 19min ≈ 3 1/10 Days)
Total Entries: 239
Total Runtime: 23,088min (384hr 48min ≈ 16⅓ Days)
Now it's time for June, Found Footage Month!
submitted by Bi0_B1lly to horror [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 10:32 Bi0_B1lly 366 DAYS OF HORROR - MAY / BODY HORROR & HOME INVASION MONTH

April 2024 - Psychological Thrillers & Body Horror Month
May was Body Horror & Home Invasion Month!
In a first for the marathon, I watched a newly released show that coincided with this month's theme, Parasyte: The Grey... Regarding how it's data will be inputted, I will be logging each episode oj the day they were watched, but the entire show will be marked as 'one film' for the tally, with all of its runtime going into the total as per usual.
With that out of the way, here's this month's line-up!
May 01 - When a Stranger Calls (1979) 97min
May 02 - The Fly (1986) 96min
May 03 - High Tension (2003) 90min
May 04 - Crimes of the Future (2022) 107min
May 05 - Eden Lake (2008) 91min
May 06 - The Human Centipede (2009) 92min
May 07 - Funny Games (2007) 111min
May 08 - Hellraiser (1987) 94min
May 09 - Final Destination (2000) 98min
May 10 - Saw (2004) 103min
May 11 - Eraserhead (1977) 89min
May 12 - Mother's Day (1980) 90min
May 13 - Splinter (2008) 82min
May 14 - Teeth (2007) 94min
May 15 - The Purge (2013) 86min
May 16 - Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989) 67min
May 17 - Don't Breathe (2016) 89min
May 18 - Videodrome (1983) 88min
May 19 - The Strangers: Chapter 1 (2024) 91min
May 20 - The Blob (1988) 95min
May 21 - Hush (2016) 82min
May 22 - American Mary (2012) 102min
May 23 - Knock Knock (2015) 99min
May 24 - A Serbian Film (2010) 103min
May 25 - Sleep Tight (2011) 97min
May 26 - Thanatomorphose (2012) 100min
May 27 - Contracted (2013) 84min
May 28 - The Brood (1979) 92min
May 29 - Inside (2016) 85min
May 30 - Bug (2006) 98min
May 31 - Street Trash (1987) 100min
Current Entries: 48
Current Runtime: 4,459min (74hr 19min ≈ 3 1/10 Days)
Total Entries: 239
Total Runtime: 23,088min (384hr 48min ≈ 16⅓ Days)
Now it's time for June, Found Footage Month!
submitted by Bi0_B1lly to horrorfilms [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 10:19 zanpancan Draft 1

Suprabhat, Vannakam, Adab and Welcome to the 2024 LOK SABHA GENERAL ELECTION THUNDERDOME.
NO RULES, NO LIMITS, ONLY CHAOS.
THE CAGE -
India is a parliamentary democracy that follows the first-past-the-post voting system, similar to the standard Westminster System. The Lower House of the Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) consists of 543 seats representing 543 constituencies that send 1 Member of Parliament (MP) each. These 543 MP's then choose a prime minister via simple majority.
For each constituency, a political party gives a ticket to a single Candidate. The Candidate with at least a plurality of votes in a constituency represents that Constituency in parliament as a member of the party.
There are no party level primaries in India, the candidate for a constituency is decided by the party high command and only one person from a party can be on the ticket for a particular seat. You can contest multiple constituencies though from the same party as both Narendra Modi (2014 BJP Candidate for both Varanasi and Vadodara) and Rahul Gandhi (2024 Congress Candidate for both Rae Bareili and Wayanad) have done. If no existing political party gives you a ticket, you can contest as an Independent Candidate or form your own party and contest as a member of your own party.
The government can be formed by the party or the alliance that has a simple majority of MP's. When no single political party has a majority of MP's, an alliance of various parties can be formed that contains the majority of MP's. This is called a post-poll alliance, where the parties contest elections separately but might come together after the elections in order to form the government or be part of the government. However there is also the pre-poll alliance where political parties join or form an alliance before the elections.
THE DATES -
THE RESULTS -
EXIT POLLS -
THE FIGHTS -
Economy & Employment:
The incumbent BJP-led NDA government makes the positive case of economic growth and development under its decade long tenure. It points to strong rejuvenated GDP growth with relatively low inflation, rising wages, a growing middle class, stable macroeconomic positioning, strong spending, slashing of multidimensional poverty, a strong and well administered welfare state, expanded free trade, sharp reduction in regulation, increase in select manufacturing and industry, a revitalized finance sector, and a thriving service market.
The government points to the large-scale infrastructure development undertaken, expanding roadways, delivering expansive electrification, and provisions of basic utility services. They point to the stagnation and policy paralysis observed under the tenure of the last Congress government (UPA 2), and further make point to the opposition's alleged proposed populist economic programs as untenable and unfeasible. They make the case that the opposition has leftist economic policies that are not grounded in economic reality.
The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition on the other hand, makes the negative case against the incumbents, pointing to large scale youth unemployment, even among educated youth. They point to an alleged inability of the government to tie growth to employment. They allege a failure of manufacturing capacity and sufficient industrialization of the economy, highlighting the lack of sufficient private capital inflows. They criticize the growth figures of the economy by casting doubt on the government's statistics, and focusing extensively on growing wealth inequality, alleging that growth only occurs for the rich billionaire class, with minimal relief for the poor, targeting specific attacks against domestic industrial magnates, Adani and Ambani. They allege favoritism on the part of the incumbent government towards their select base, highlighting the state of Gujarat as being prioritized over other states.
In making their positive case, they propose a more inclusive and redistributive model of growth, proposing heightened subsidization programmes, more welfare and support programmes, higher taxation on the wealthy and corporations, leveraging private capital inflows for infrastructure development, and prioritizing equitable growth through a caste census, developing corrective policies for inequalities between castes.
They aim to solve the employment crisis through expanding roles in state enterprises and filling government vacancies, alongside expanding labour intensive industries like manufacturing and mining, whilst pointing to high growth rates of the economy as well as committing to expand manufacturing through reforms and subsidy platforms like the PLI, FAME etc., further claiming that increased infrastructure spending will lead to crowding in effect thus enabling faster industrialization.
Social Justice:
The issues of social equity and justice have become major cornerstones of both the incumbent and opposition electoral platforms. This is most prevalent through the forthcoming section on sectarianism, but also focuses on key issues regarding class equality and - most importantly - caste-based discrimination.
The incumbent BJP-led NDA government point to their solid track record of universal poverty alleviation, targeted successful welfare and affirmative action programmes. The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition on the other hand, point to growing wealth inequality and apparent institutional and systemic discrimination against underprivileged caste communities in academia, employment, governmental programmes, courts, the military, etc. They allege that the government has not committed to taking resolute and definitive action against casteism through corrective policy.
This all boils down to the Reservation system, a large scale, affirmative action initiative, conducted through a systematic quota-based policy of allotment of institutional positions in education, governmental employment, schemes and programmes, direct political representation, etc.
With reservations estimated to have hit 59.5% of Central Government Institutional positions, there are now broader calls to expand the scale and scope of this drive. The opposition wanting to break the cap limits and even introduce this system into the private sector to potentially induce parity, while the government commits to more modest hikes of upto 62.5% while playing into incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi's identity as a member of an underprivileged caste community.
While the opposition campaigns on removing limits to the quota system to deliver equity, the government alleges these commitments to be populist and detrimental, while alleging that the opposition seeks to potentially appease its Muslim voter base by introducing expanded reservations for Muslims, thereby allegedly sabotaging the disadvantaged Hindu lower castes, and redistributing their wealth to Muslims, in a bid to gain their votes.
Communalism:
Both the incumbent BJP-led NDA government and the INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition have framed communalism as a lynchpin issue of the Election. The incumbent government points to alleged casteist and bigoted rhetoric against select caste groups and Hindus. They allege the opposition panders to minorities for their votes, whilst not delivering on the real issues. They allege the opposition seeks to drive up divisiveness and shared social harmony in India. They further allege that the opposition engages in divisive rhetoric on key issues of Hindu-Indian culture like that of the Ram Temple, in ways that contradict the spirit of the Indian State.
The opposition on the other hand, accused the incumbent government of being bigoted against minority communities, from the large Muslim community, to the lower caste communities of Indian society. They allege use of hateful and divisive rhetoric against these communities, and point to select controversial government positions and policies on issues like the Ram Mandir, the controversial CAA-NRC laws, the proposed Uniform Civil Code, among others. They further allege institutional degradation of key offices including policing, academia, and the military in discriminating against minority groups.
Institutional Independence:
The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition alleges institutional degradation and capture of various independent governmental entities by the incumbents. They point to the use of Executive, Investigative, Anti-Corruption, Enforcement, & Tax authorities against opposition figures and media as evidence, highlighting specific cases of the detaining and arrest of two sitting opposition Chief Ministers, and the resignation of one. They highlight alleged selective targeting of opposition figures for raids, charges, and arrests, creating an alleged environment of impunity for the government. The opposition alleges heightened and blatant partisanship of members of the Judiciary in support of the incumbent government. They also allege illegitimate freezing of campaigning funds, crackdowns on press freedoms via capture of media institutions, and also critically alleges institutional capture of the Election Commission, casting doubts on election results primarily critiquing India's Electronic Voting Machines (EVM).
The Government rebukes these claims as part of a strong anti-corruption drive, highlighting a drop in governmental corruption cases since the previous Congress government (UPA 2, infamously riddled with such allegations). The government frames the opposition parties as corrupt and power-hungry, while further disparaging the opposition's alleged unfounded attacks on Indian institutions, apparent partisan attacks on the judiciary and critiquing apparent unfounded claims of election denialism.
THE FIGHTERS –
The election is primarily clash between two large coalitions, and their leading parties. On one side, you have the incumbent government of the BJP-led NDA, or National Democratic Alliance, and on the other, you have the opposition INC-led I.N.D.I.A, or Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, a new mega coalition of more than 35 parties, with a few unofficial supporters too.
The following is a list of some key players in each of the alliances and is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive list of all involved factions.
The incumbent NDA includes:
  1. BJP – The BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party - "Indian People's Party") is a Hindu nationalist party committed to Hindutva ideology, promoting Hindu culture, opposing Muslim immigration, and creating a nativist country wherein India embraces a fundamentally Hindu social fabric. The BJP government under Modi undertook strong reformist policies in promoting liberalization of the economy through aggressive regulatory reforms, furthering free trade through FTAs and privatization of underperforming state assets. They took aggressive stances on defense and counterterrorism against Pakistan and China, while pragmatically engaging other nations despite criticism on some foreign policy moves for being 'wolf warrior-esque'. They uphold a strong nationalist domestic and foreign policy, that simultaneously does not retreat from globalization. On National Security, they aim to make India a regional power with a strong emphasis on modernization & indigenization of military administration and technology, while also reducing bureaucratic and manpower burdens through varied recruitment windows.
  2. JD(U) - The JD(U) (Janata Dal (United) – “People’s Party (United)”) is led by Bihar CM Nitish Kumar and has been in power in the eastern state of Bihar since 2005. It was formed after a series of splits and mergers in the Janata Dal in the 90s. It is credited with doing good work in the state on roads, electricity, and water, however it has failed to provide jobs & spur manufacturing. This, combined with its leader frequently switching between rival alliances, is causing anti-incumbency.
  3. TDP - The TDP (Telugu Desam Party – “Party of the Telugu Land") follows a pro-Telugu ideology. It was founded as an alternative to the Congress hegemony, by emphasizing Telugu regional pride and serving as the party for farmers, backward castes and middle-class people. Since the 1990s, it has followed an economically liberal policy that has been seen as pro-business and pro-development as well as populist welfare measures.
The opposition I.N.D.I.A includes:
  1. INC - The INC (Indian National Congress) is a big tent social-democratic/democratic-socialist party with its foundational pillars being equity, equality, and egalitarianism. They take broad commitments to secularism and class equality to be principal positions. The INC under Rahul Gandhi has taken strong positions on caste issues, shining light on inequities from past and current discrimination, and proposing active policy interventions. While the INC also holds a free-market/pro-liberalization consensus, they emphasize growing social and wealth inequality and seek inclusive and redistributive growth with strong state intervention. They also see some proposed liberalizing reforms to further inequality and take an 'anti-corporatist' position. They take a slightly less strong position to Indian foreign policy, stressing a more diplomatic approach (with minimal variance on actual positions to the incumbents). They embrace globalization in part, while emphasizing India's need for domestic development. They aim to industrialize India rapidly through stimulating private investment and aim to subsidize both supply and demand. They seek to maintain the Indian military with a focus on highly trained soldiers. They pioneered multi-alignment as the foreign policy for India.
  2. AAP - The AAP (Aam Aadmi Party – “Common Man's Party"), part of INDIA coalition, currently holds power in two key states - Delhi and Punjab. Its chief figurehead and leader, Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under an alleged liquor scam in the run up to elections. Barely a 10 year old party it has expanded very quickly to many states, running two of them, and now has national party status by the Election Commission of India (ECI). It leans centre-left to centre-right, with some play of soft Hindutva, while its economic platform comprises heavy spending in education, health, and free schemes of water and electricity. They rose to power on an anti-corruption program in 2013 and continues to have it as its central plank.
  3. CPI(M) – The CPI(M) (Communist Party of India (Marxist)). They commies lol. The CPI(M) is one of the larger and more mainstrean communist parties in India. Since they operate within the Indian republic's constitution they have adopted more Indian characterisrics. They are primarily against privatisation in the public sector and in favour of universal education and healthcare. Their base has traditionally been in Kerala, one of the more developed states in India in terms of income levels and HCI. they're in favour of private sector reservations and in recent years have also been pro-FDI They promise non-aligned foreign policy, but largely are very anti-US and pro-China. They promise to restore Article 370 and oppose forceful seizure of land by government. They're one of the most influential parties in India due to a strong cadre and student union ecosystem. They've had an effect on the farmers protests as well as economic positions of the INDI Alliance.
  4. DMK - The DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam - “Dravidian Progressive Federation") is a big tent broad left-wing party that is foundationally Dravidian (primarily Tamil) Nationalist, with strong emphasis on social equity and caste issues, while being staunchly secular and atheistic, and interventionist, statist, heavily welfarist, and industrialist in economic policy. They are primarily a regional party operating in the state of Tamil Nadu, led by M.K. Stalin, the state's current Chief Minister.
  5. RJD - The RJD (Rashtriya Janata Dal – “National People’s Party”) is a caste-based (Muslims & Yadavs) political party in the Indian state of Bihar, which it ruled from 1990 to 2005. Its rule was one of extreme lawlessness & anarchy. It was called the “Jungle Raj”. Between 1990 & 2000, Bihar's per capita income and power consumption fell off a cliff due to mismanagement. Its CM, Lalu Prasad, was convicted of corruption in 2013.
  6. SP - The SP (Samajwadi Party – “Socialist Party”) believes in creating a socialist society that operates on the principle of equality. Although the party previously ran on an anti-computer, anti-English, and anti-machinery platform, under its new national president Akhilesh Yadav, the party has made a 180° turn. Now, the Samajwadi Party declares itself to be the party of infrastructure while maintaining its commitment to social justice, with a special focus on teaching computer skills. The party's main base is in the state of Uttar Pradesh, which is the most populated state in India, with a population of 230 million. The only negatives associated with the party are the rampant dynasticism within its ranks and its perceived soft stance on law and order issues.
  7. JMM - The JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha – “Jharkhand Liberation Front") currently runs the govt of eastern state of Jharkhand. The party has historically centred tribal rights as its central plank and agitated for a new tribal state separate from Bihar until 2000, when their demands were met. It leans centre-left to left with their key issues being tribal control of land, mineral and mining rights, addressing issues of rehabilitation of tribals. The party is primarily run by the Soren family, with Champai Soren being its chief minister candidate in the current government after the last chief minister Hemant Soren was arrested by enforcement directorate. JMM is in alliance with the Indian national congress in the state, and part of the INDIA coalition for the Lok Sabha elections. They face charges of corruption and the image of dynastic politics.
The “It’s Complicated”, Unaligned, Split, and/or other Supplementary Parties include:
  1. TMC - The TMC or AITC (All India Trinamool Congress) is a Bengali political party ruling over the state of West Bengal since 2011. It is led by Mamata Banerjee and her nephew Abhishek Banerjee. It is a center-left, welfarist, Bengali Nationalist party. It has been criticized for using heavy-handed authoritarian tactics against opposition leaders in the state, corruption, and political violence. It is credited with ending 34 years of communist rule in the state. West Bengal under the AITC has registered subpar economic performance and is largely stagnant. Pertinent to note Mamata used to be Congress leader till 1998, and AITC, in spite of being sympathetic towards the I.N.D.I.A. alliance at the national level, is fighting the Congress-Left alliance in West Bengal on all 42 seats.
  2. AIADMK - The AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam – “All India Anna Dravidian Progressive Federation") is a broad centre-left/left-wing party adhering to foundational Dravidian philosophy, while emphasizing Tamil identity. Traditionally being less ethno-nationalist than their sister opposition party the DMK, they adhere to broad welfarist left-wing populism, focusing on social justice and communal equity, while being less economically statist than the DMK. They also focus primarily on Tamil Nadu as a regional party, currently led by Edappadi Palaniswami.
  3. Shiv Sena - The Shiv Sena (“Army of Shivaji”) was founded by Bal Thackeray in 1966 as a populist, xenophobic party, although the party gradually added Hindutva ideology to its anti non-Maharashtrian plank. It was the long time senior partner to the BJP in Maharashtra till Narendra Modi's popularity caused a change in the dynamics. After power sharing talks with the BJP failed in 2019, the Shiv Sena switched alliances to join hands with their long time rivals in Congress and NCP in an arrangement that made Bal Thackeray’s son Uddhav Thackeray the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. In 2022 again, The Majority of Shiv Sena politicians led by Eknath Shinde rebelled against the top leadership to ally again with the BJP, taking control of the party and toppling the Uddhav Thackeray government. The splinter group led by Uddhav Thackeray is called SS (UBT) and it is allied with the Congress in the INDIA Alliance.
  4. NCP – The NCP (Nationalist Congress Party) were founded in 1998 by Sharad Pawar and a few others who left the Congress in 1998 after Sonia Gandhi was made Congress president. Despite it's formation, the NCP was a long term ally of the Congress sharing virtually the same ideology. In 2023 however, like the Shiv Sena, In a rebellion led by Sharad Pawar's nephew Ajit, a Majority of NCP politicians switched alliances to support the BJP and took control of the party. Like the Shiv Sena, the Splinter group led by Sharad Pawar and his daughter is called NCP (SP) and it's allied with the Congress in the INDIA Alliance
  5. YSRCP - The YSRCP (Yuvjana Sramika Rythu Congress Party – “Youth, Labour, & Farmer Congress Party”) was founded by the son of an old congress Chief Minister after he was denied the role of Chief Minister after his father. It's a populist centre-of-left party with strong focus on welfare schemes and cash benefits. It's mired in controversy due to its dynastic nature, its ties to Christian Fundamentalism and American Missionaries targeting the marginalized.
  6. BRS - The BRS (Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi – “Indian National Council”) was formed originally with a single-point agenda of creating a separate Telangana state with Hyderabad as its capital. They are largely neoliberal and are credited with rapid economic growth in Telangana.
  7. BJD – The BJD (Biju Janata Dal – “Biju’s People’ Platform”) was formed by Naveen Pattnaik the son of the former CM of Oddisha, Biju Pattnaik. It’s a Odia regional party with a strong focus on poverty upliftment through welfare policies and equitable economic growth.
  8. BSP - The BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party - "Majority Community Party") is a center-left party in the state of Uttar Pradesh, which was started to uplift Dalits and other marginalized communities in India by Kanshi Ram. Its current party president is Mayawati. BSP is considered as one of the biggest parties in India as per vote share, although it's currently in decline. At its height, this party had a strong base in many states across north India, but now it's only limited to the state of Uttar Pradesh, which is one of the largest states in India with a population of 230 million. There are strong suspicions of BSP working in secret with BJP, and maybe that's why the party is not fighting this election enthusiastically. Although they can still make the competition interesting on a few seats in UP.
OTHER KEY ISSUES -
  1. Political Dynasticism:
Although dynastism is thought to be a good fix for internal chaos in a party, the current political leader of the Congress, Rahul Gandhi, is a fourth-generation dynast who has to carry the political baggage of everything which went wrong during the rule of his grandmother and great-grandfather.
Also because one family has been controlling the Congress for decades, it has caused various state-level leaders to either form their own party or join another one. They see no future in the Congress anymore because the door to leadership is always closed for them. This has destroyed the ground level cadre of Congress party in many key states.
Rahul Gandhi’s privilege combined with the lack of any real political acumen so far has led to the INC taking damage due to is infamy.
Nepotism and dynastic politics has been a key issue throughout the last 10 years as BJP positions itself as the ‘common man’s party’
  1. The Ram Mandir:
A land dispute originating from the alleged destruction of a Hindu Temple, replaced by a Mosque built allegedly atop the site (the Babri Masjid) in the 16th century allegedly by Mughal Empror Babur in present day Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, the proposed birthplace of the Hindu deity Lord Ram.
Following a century of sporadic conflict, from 1853 to 1949, a revivalist movement in the 1980's would lead to rising communal tensions, culminating in the 1992 destruction of the Ram Temple by Hindu Nationalists and devotees.
The legal conflict over the land would continue until 2019, when the Supreme Court of India issued the controversial ruling that the land be handed over to government trust for the construction of a Ram Temple, with seperate land being allotted to the local Muslim community for construction of a Mosque.
Almost all elements of the dispute remain mired in controversy. From the historical and religious associations of Ayodhya with Ram, the existence of a definitively Hindu structure, the alleged deliberate destruction of the said temple, the times and events of construction and use, the participants, planning, and events of the 1992 destruction, the ASI Archeological Surveys that served as key evidence for the Supreme Court being tampered and politicised by both sides of the politcal aisle, the legality of the ruling itself, and other surrounding issues regarding justice against those alleged to have partaken in the destruction of the Babri Masjid.
  1. Foreign Policy:
The BJP is campaigning on building a multi-aligned foreign policy where India is seen as the world’s friend as well as an upcoming regional power. This was at its peak during India’s G20 presidency. Many Indians claim the rise of India’s global stature is an electoral issue. This can be seen in the popularity of the government’s anti-terror operations in both Pakistan and beyond. The resurgence of an interventionist foreign policy has proven to be popular in projecting the strongman image of Modi. The country’s commitment to it’s strategic autonomy and multi-alignment have been a fixture right since Nehru.
SUPPLEMENTARY SOURCES:
submitted by zanpancan to u/zanpancan [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 09:54 exsaphhi Zimbabwe and New Caledonia are the point (and why that’s not what is happening here)

The more conspiracist someone in New Zealand is, the more likely they are to bring up Zimbabwe. I know that because I have a cooker in my family, and by god, you’d think the place was his home country for the amount he talks about it. But it’s become a real conspiracy for the right, and an angle from verified bad actor accounts that was modded out of this sub at our beginning.
And the reason why there’s a direct correlation between conspiracists and Zimbabwe stans is that you can’t help but notice their fears of history repeating fall apart somewhat when you actually look into it. For a start, you can blame one person for the deaths and economic devastation caused by Mugabe, and that Tony Blair, because he kicked the whole thing off when he walked back Thatcher’s promise of 50% of the compensation for white landowners. Thatcher did like one decent thing and Blair came in and messed it up. Not without context. But through its entire history, it is the UK’s choices and the choices of her colonial government there that spur change and negative outcomes in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe was first thought to be mineral rich at its early 1890 settlement, and a lot of money was put into getting prospectors to Southern Rhodesia. When this return didn’t eventuate, land was given to the settlers instead in hope their farming could become productive enough to cover the settlements continuing administrative costs. By 1986 they had distributed 16 million hectares, a sixth of Southern Rhodesia, and by 1917, this was up to 21.5 million hectares. However, this expanse of farming would cause friction of land rights and grazing rights with the two resident groups already living there. Cattle in the region expanded from about 60 000, owned mostly by the preexisting Ndebele and Shona peoples, to up to 2 million split evenly between both groups, leading to overgrazing and land competition.
The solution in the 1930s by the colonial government was a segregated land distribution method split into five parts, with the best 3/5 being reserved for white owners and the much more unusable remainder of the land being split amongst black land owners — despite them being greater in number than white people. White people had so much productive land they literally couldn’t farm it all, while the remaining Tribal Trust land was still being overfarmed, forcing black Rhodesians to seek work in cities and the colonial government to introduce forced destocking measures (sell or slaughter excess animals), as well as putting aside 7.2 million more acres for native farmers to purchase.
The 50s saw attempts at redistribution that ultimately failed and authority for this would then be vested the traditional tribal leaders.
The beginning of the 60s were an attempt to introduce a semblance of actual land parity, splitting the land 50/50 with whites and blacks — unfortunately this didn’t work very well because black people greatly outnumbered white people, and the fertile land was still just given to whites. Abuses of the system also saw white people legally shift their boundaries to claim black land resulting in evictions that would create Nationalist sympathies leading to the following war.
60s-70s was the Rhodesian Bush War between three groups, one of them being the colonial government, and resulting in Mugabe taking power. He was left juggling the land issue along with the cohesion of his new coalition. Farmer workers had fled to cities during the fighting and been organised into guarded settlements following state suppression of armed conflicts. More land was made available to purchase by people of any race, and then race-based ownership was abolished completely in 1979. Despite this, white farmers owned 73% of fertile land and contributed 80% of agricultural output.
Under a doctrine of willing buyer, willing seller for at least ten years, the US and the UK agreed to finance part of the redistribution costs, and Southern Rhodesia was recognised as finally-independent Zimbabwe. However, land inequality and erosion of black land due to forced overfarming continued, but white-owned commercial farms were reduced by about 20% by 1987, and progress was continued into the 90s. However corruption issues began to emerge with land and leases going to Mugabe’s family and political associates as well as other powerful people. Donor and investor states became concerned with who was benefitting, heightened when Mugabe took powers to supersede the courts. He held that land was a political matter only, not judicial.
British opinion in funding this programme would deteriorate, until the Short and the then-Labour government would deny their obligation to support the redistribution programme.
I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and, as you know, we were colonised, not colonisers.
In June 1998, the Zimbabwe government published its "policy framework" on the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase II (LRRP II), which envisaged the compulsory purchase over five years of 50,000 square kilometres from the 112,000 square kilometres owned by white commercial farmers, public corporations, churches, non-governmental organisations and multinational companies. Broken down, the 50,000 square kilometres meant that every year between 1998 and 2003, the government intended to purchase 10,000 square kilometres for redistribution.
In September 1998, the government called a donors conference in Harare on LRRP II to inform the donor community and involve them in the program: Forty-eight countries and international organisations attended and unanimously endorsed the land program, saying it was essential for poverty reduction, political stability and economic growth. They agreed that the inception phase, covering the first 24 months, should start immediately, particularly appreciating the political imperative and urgency of the proposal.
The Commercial Farmers Union freely offered to sell the government 15,000 square kilometres for redistribution, but landowners once again dragged their feet. In response to moves by the National Constitutional Assembly, a group of academics, trade unionists and other political activists, the government drafted a new constitution. The draft was discussed widely by the public in formal meetings and amended to include restrictions on presidential powers, limits to the presidential term of office, and an age limit of 70 for presidential candidates. This was not seen as a suitable outcome for the government, so the proposals were amended to replace those clauses with one to compulsorily acquire land for redistribution without compensation. The opposition mostly boycotted the drafting stage of the constitution claiming that this new version was to entrench Mugabe politically.
Guerrilla veterans of the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) and Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) began to emerge as a radical force in the land issue around this time. The guerrillas forcefully presented their position that white-owned land in Zimbabwe was rightfully theirs, on account of promises made to them during the Rhodesian Bush War. Calls for accelerated land reform were also echoed by an affluent urban class of black Zimbabweans who were interested in making inroads into commercial farming, with public assistance.
The government held a referendum on the new constitution on 12–13 February 2000, despite having a sufficiently large majority in parliament to pass any amendment it wished. Had it been approved, the new constitution would have empowered the government to acquire land compulsorily without compensation. Despite vast support in the media, the new constitution was defeated, 55% to 45%.
In response, a pro-Mugabe group marched on white owned farms, forcing them and their usually-black workers off their farms without compensation. In the subsequent years of land confiscation, several farm owners and more workers would be killed.
Some of this land ended up under the control of Mugabe and other politicians, however by 2011, 238,000 households had been apportioned from 10 million hectares of land, an improvement of 3.5 million over the 20 years up until 1998. In 2019, white Zimbabwean farmers accepted $17 million USD in compensation, and in 2020 the Zimbabwe government would commit to paying back a further 3.5 billion.
How does this relate to New Zealand?
Well let’s start with the obvious: land distribution issues do not go away because you want them to, nor will democracy protect you from it if you shit on the people you took the land from. Zimbabwe happened because landowners dragged their feet in every decade for a century, and a radicalised political faction springing from this injustice decided legal methods were not the way to go. By the time people were willing to come to the table to resolve it, they were a good fifty behind when they should have and it was too late.
Secondly, picking and choosing what you give back doesn’t work if you’re still just fucking over the tribes you’re giving stuff to to advantage yourself. If you say, give someone a couple of million dollars of value in exchange for the entire canterbury and otago regions, they may decide in 30 years time that wasn’t a very fair deal. And they’re probably right.
Thirdly, black people are not doing well right now in Zimbabwe and neither are white people. But the black people already weren’t doing well. You may look at Zimbabwe and say, well they’ve screwed over their own economy there. But they didn’t. They screwed over the white economy that too many of them already weren’t benefitting from. You see the stability a strong economy gives you and think that other people are benefitting too; Zimbabwe did get a lot out of their land in the 1900s due to colonial investment. But it didn’t benefit all people, and the failure to lift everyone in the rising tide sunk ALL the ships.
The Treaty idea of Partnership is the compromise. Giving back tiny bits of land and small change is the baby steps. Start taking us backwards and you’ll make Maori realise just how shortchanged they’ve been, and the natural result of that is not that they go away, it’s that they start demanding more.
But the level of disenfranchisement, of disrespect, of disempowerment does have to reach a much more egregious level than the situation we have here to result in widespread violence. Six months of Shane Jones does not a civil war make. It is a long, long process to get to a point where a country is that divided, and a lot of legitimate legal, political, and negotiating instruments have to fail. There is also a certain level of disinvestment people have to feel in the overall system to throw what they have away — there’s a reason socialist revolutions don’t come from peaceful, placated societies, even the ones educated enough to know there is something wrong. So therefore, progress must be made gradually through peace and cooperation, because unilateral force always has lasting negative consequences. Attempts to forge ahead with reform despite unhappiness of particular groups, even when legally decided will work out worse for everyone.
There are going to be a million opportunities to turn this ship around. This relationship is nowhere near beyond repair, even between this government and iwi. If Luxon had a spine, he would sit down with them and promise to reverse course, and probably send us all back to the polls as a result. He won’t. But I’m pretty confident he won’t win the next election either, whenever it is, and this country isn’t nearly so divided enough to split down the middle along race grounds, no matter what Seymour wants. But to unify, to meet in the middle, you have to stop considering what you think is fair and start hearing what the other group wants and why.
Otherwise we’re just letting corrupt politicians make land grabs while they cut us in half.
submitted by exsaphhi to nzpolitics [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 09:37 zhuzhu_sauvage Risque explosion zone euro: quels sous-jacents pour obligations ?

Risque explosion zone euro: quels sous-jacents pour obligations ?
Bonjour à tous,
J'ai quelques sous à placer (= but de conservation du capital) pour 2 à 4 ans. Normalement les obligations sont parfaites pour ça car moins risquées.
Mon pays de résidence est la France.
Le truc c'est que: - Les taux devraient prochainement baisser (fin 2024/début 2025); - Il y a probablement un coup à jouer sur la duration; - Il y a un risque élevé que l'euro éclate (c.f les déséquilibres target 2, image en PJ) ce qui implique un risque de change avec les plus ou moins value qui vont avec.
Que conseilleriez vous ? - Prendre un etf duration longue en EUR ? - Détenir directement des obligations à terme dans les pays EUR avec une monnaie forte (Allemagne, Pays-Bas, Luxembourg, Autriche,...) ? De telle sorte que si l'euro éclate, les obligations seront libellées en monnaie locale qui sont plus forte que le franc français (=plus value sur le taux de change). - Si on part du principe que le risque de change en zone EUR ne peut pas être supprimé (sauf à tout placer en France), alors n'est-ce pas rentable d'investir tout de suite hors zone EUR ? Comme GBP ou CHF
Comment avez-vous intégré ces paramètres dans vos investissements ?
submitted by zhuzhu_sauvage to vosfinances [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 08:40 mandingo_gringo I want to start a NGO guiding African and Arab refugees to Monaco

I want to start a NGO guiding African and Arab refugees to Monaco
As you can see by this photo, refugees from Africa and Arabic countries clearly do not realize Monaco exist, even though they are very rich and have so much money for them. Literally 100x more than Germany.
So my idea is to start a NGO that will help guide refugees to Monaco because Monaco needs diversity and needs culturally enrichment.
I want to play my part in defeating racism, so my NGO will be promoting interracial relationships between African/ Arabs and the locals of Monaco. I would really love to see racism come to a complete stop and make Monaco the interracial couple capital of Europe. Think of something like Brazil. How magical this would be. #endracism #refugeesinmonaco
submitted by mandingo_gringo to 2westerneurope4u [link] [comments]

2024.06.01 08:33 ItsGotThatBang Is Ron Paul responsible for the rise of Trumpism in general & Vivek Ramaswamy in particular?

Ron Paul Redux: The Texan Congressman Has an Unlikely Intellectual Heir: Vivek Ramaswamy is running on Paul’s regressive libertarian populism
Remember that moment in the Republican presidential debate when one brash guy voiced some unorthodox positions, and the other candidates hastened to express their vigorous disagreement? Probably not. I mean, the debate took place in 2011, and that controversial Republican, Ron Paul, has largely faded from memory.
When he ran for the GOP nomination in 2008 and 2012, Paul came across as a rumpled gadfly voicing unvarni­shed opinions that put him on the fringes of the party. But today, at 88, he can look with pride on an ideological heir who is young, handsome and slick– and happens to be in perfect harmony with the modern Republican Party: No, not Rand Paul, Ron’s son, the three-term Republican Senator from Kentucky. It is the practicing Hindu and son of Indian immigrants: Vivek Ramaswamy.
Ramaswamy doesn’t look or act like the avuncular Texas obstetrician. Educated at Harvard and Yale, with a glib confidence and a physique suited to playing tennis shirtless, Ramaswamy could hardly be more different. But that’s on the surface. Put him and Paul together in a room and they would find plenty to agree on. Not only do both self-identify as libertarians, they represent the same flavor of populist paleolibertarianism. The main difference is that Paul was starkly at odds with the prevailing ideology of the GOP back then. Ramaswamy, on the other hand, is fluent in the language of today’s very different GOP.
Comrades In Arms
Paul railed against the federal government and particularly the central bankers at the Federal Reserve. He abhorred multilateral institutions, affirmative action, foreign aid, welfare, and environmental protection. He denounced NAFTA as a step toward a North American Union. He vowed to cut federal spending by $1 trillion in his first year and abolish five cabinet departments. His newsletter described Martin Luther King Jr. as “the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.” Paul later claimed that he didn’t write or approve such statements in the publication that bore his name. But his followers ate them up.
You can hear distinct echoes of much of this in Ramaswamy.
The 38-year-old pharmaceutical tycoon says he would eliminate the Department of Education, the IRS, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the FBI, part of his unlikely plan to get rid of 75% of the federal workforce. He has said he would cut off aid to Ukraine and, in time, to Israel too – though he later reversed himself on the latter. Like Paul, he claims the “climate change agenda is a hoax.”
When a white gunman killed three Black people in Jacksonville, Florida, Ramaswamy, who likewise opposes affirmative action, put the blame not so much on the perpetrator but on racial preferences for creating “a new wave of anti-Black and anti-Hispanic racism in this country.” He suggested his running mate might be Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is notorious for his anti-vaccine disinformation, popular in certain libertarian circles.
Ramaswamy has raised the possibility that government instigators were involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection. But you know who beat him to that? Ron Paul. (There is no evidence of that.)
Carrying Water for Trump
Ramaswamy says, “I don't think Donald Trump was the cause of Jan. 6,” ignoring a Himalayan pile of evidence confirming that he was thoroughly complicit in the Capitol insurrection. Without knowing the evidence that will emerge during Trump’s criminal trials—which Ramaswamy smears as “politicized prosecution”—he promises to grant the former president a full pardon. Oh, and he describes Trump as “the best president of the 21st century,” despite his unprecedented effort to overturn a free and fair democratic election.
Paul, meanwhile, has said little—if anything—about Trump’s role in inciting the Capitol mob. He has, however, slammed the Jan. 6 Congressional hearings as “insurrection theater” perpetrated by “desperate Democrats.”
On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Ramaswamy outlined the following bizarre scenario if he were certifying the last election instead of Mike Pence: “Here’s what I would have said: ‘We need single-day voting on Election Day, we need paper ballots, and we need government-issued ID matching the voter file.’. . . In my capacity as president of the Senate, I would have led through that level of reform, then on that condition certified the election results, served it up to the president — President Trump — then to sign that into law. And on January 7th, declared the re-election campaign pursuant to a free and fair election.”
And then he would have ridden away on his purple unicorn. Ramaswamy’s alternative was not only idiotic but impossible, a tribute to either ignorance of the Constitution and the legislative process or breathtaking dishonesty. Paul had a reputation for being a kook given his many offbeat crusades. But Ramaswamy seems determined to outdo him.
On immigration too, Ramaswamy and Paul are remarkably aligned with each other and at odds with policy libertarians, who paleolibertarians deride as establishment elites. Paul was against a border wall—at least he said he was—whereas Ramaswamy, borrowing from Trump, has pledged to “close the southern border.” But Paul talked incessantly about eliminating the incentives for “illegal immigration,” to wit, easy welfare and easy birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented. In the same vein, Ramaswamy has pledged to push a constitutional amendment ending birthright citizenship if elected.
Ramaswamy: No Anti-War Warrior
But that’s not the only thing in the constitution Ramaswamy wants to amend. He’d also raise the voting age to 25, which would disenfranchise 31 million people—more than the population of Texas. That’s one way to address the Republican Party’s low esteem among 18-to-24 voters, 65% of whom voted for Joe Biden in 2020, though he may not have considered the electoral vengeance they would exact as soon as they turn 25.
Ramaswamy’s measure combines the anti-democratic with the coercive. Young adults could gain voting rights by passing a civics quiz or by spending six months in the military or “first responder service”—his goal being to “revive civic duty among Americans.” He has also advocated compulsory universal service for high school students on summer breaks in his book, Woke Inc.
Much of this, along with Ramaswamy’s embrace of the Monroe Doctrine as a warning to foreign powers such as China that “America comes First and that our hemisphere is not to be encroached by our adversaries,” would not thrill the Paulistas whose version of America Firstism consists of not spilling American blood for foreigners. Nor would they likely go along with Ramaswamy’s proposal to use military force to “annihilate the Mexican drug cartels” or his suggestion to make a firm commitment to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.
But paleolibertarian Paul fans would be four squares behind Ramaswamy on ceding Ukraine to Putin – the only Republican on the debate stage in favor of doing so.
Mainstreaming the Fringe
They would also be open to Ramaswamy’s conspiratorial turn of mind. Paul has tried to distance himself from the kooky theories peddled under his name in his newsletter—like when in the grimmest days of the AIDS epidemic, it accused gays of plotting to “poison the blood supply”—but Paul himself is on the record claiming that the U.S. government knew about 9/11 in advance but kept it a secret. In a similar vein, Ramaswamy also hinted­ at federal involvement in the attack but recanted later.
When Paul ran for the GOP nomination, his views were effectively disqualifying. In 2012, his best showing, he finished third in the Iowa caucuses and second in the New Hampshire primaries. He eventually ended up with 8% of the convention delegates, putting him fourth in the overall race. But like Pat Buchanan before him, he was never halfway plausible as the Republican presidential nominee. His role was provocateur, taking bold positions that let his rivals unite in denouncing him as dangerous and irresponsible.
Ramaswamy likewise found his opponents ganging up on him in the first Republican debate, with Nikki Haley, Chris Christie and Mike Pence doing their best to read him out of the race. But his views, despite their similarity to Paul’s, can no longer be derided as conservative heresy. In fact, his rivals seemed to be the ones defensive with GOP voters, which is no surprise given Trump retains the allegiance of 59% of them, according to a post-debate poll.
Ramaswamy isn’t likely to win the nomination. But if he loses, it won’t be because his views are too extreme for the party faithful who remain under the spell of Trump’s toxic populism. That’s why Ramaswamy has shrewdly declared, “I’m in this race to take the America First agenda far further than Donald Trump ever did.”
To that end, Ramaswamy has put out a 10-point statement of his convictions which include “God is real,” “there are two genders,” “reverse racism is racism,” and “an open border is no border,” all intended to signal his vehement opposition to the left.
Paul was against the cultural left too but he didn’t make that the center-point of his campaign because the GOP then wasn’t fighting the culture war 24/7. But post-Trump, the party is fully consumed by the leftist enemy and so what was implicit in Paul is now explicit in Ramaswamy.
In retrospect, Paul was less an outlier than a forerunner. In his candidacy were the seeds of a new version of a populist libertarian conservatism—rooted in a suspicion of ties with the rest of the world, racial paranoia, rejection of cultural liberalization, hostility toward almost every major national and international institution, a propensity for red-pill fantasies and a distrust of democracy.
What was fringe in Paul’s time is now the dominant strain in the GOP—and Ramaswamy is determined to be its champion.
What are your thoughts? This is obviously a bold claim & I’m not sure I fully agree with it.
submitted by ItsGotThatBang to AskLibertarians [link] [comments]

http://activeproperty.pl/