|
What is the most powerful flying bug? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 🦋 |
|
15 | 3.71% |
| 🦇 |
|
115 | 28.47% |
| 🪰 |
|
12 | 2.97% |
| 🐦 |
|
67 | 16.58% |
| dragonfly |
|
94 | 23.27% |
| 🦟 |
|
14 | 3.47% |
| 🐝 |
|
87 | 21.53% |
| Total: | 404 votes | ||
|
western hegemony disappearing is necessary but not sufficient for a better world, op. not hard to understand.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:you need to have a new international order that enforces noninterference ready to go, rather than just pointing out water continues to be wet Ah, so we need to embrace the NAP then
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:49
|
|
|
Zodium posted:western hegemony disappearing is necessary but not sufficient for a better world, op. not hard to understand. yes, but too many people act as if it is both necessary and sufficient so they never get to the part where we build a better world
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:49
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Nix Panicus posted:Ah, so we need to embrace the NAP then a mechanism that prevents countries from rolling up with a bigger gun and saying "you're my vassal now bitch" would be useful
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:50
|
|
|
I think everyone in cspam is perfectly aware that there exists zero organization in the west to build a better world, but it is literally impossible for most of the rest of the world to progress until the american empire is dead. There's not really anyone in place to pick up the mantle of imperialism when america collapses and a multipolar world is one where progress can be made in ways that can't happen in the unipolar one we've been stuck in for decades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:51
|
|
|
Libertarianism, but woke
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:51
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:yes, but too many people act as if it is both necessary and sufficient so they never get to the part where we build a better world anyone in particular? are they with us?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:52
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:I love how even their propaganda shows that the russians (even their supposed casualties) are steadily advancing west. big "glorious victories occuring ever closer to the capital" energy
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:52
|
|
|
Hey, whatcha doing over there? Exploiting the working class? Maybe a touch of genocide? Oh well, I'm bound by the principles of non-interference to just let it go
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:53
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:you need to have a new international order that enforces noninterference ready to go, rather than just pointing out water continues to be wet You cannot demand for this to exist prior to the death of America because it is America that will prevent it from happening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:54
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Hey, whatcha doing over there? Exploiting the working class? Maybe a touch of genocide? If the USSR hadn't given weapons and support to the ANC, I would likely still be living under Apartheid, so I'm a big fan of foreign interference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:57
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Hey, whatcha doing over there? Exploiting the working class? Maybe a touch of genocide? nah maybe you can include a mechanism for the international community to offer aid/cut off blatantly oppressive regimes but make it not depend on some random heavily armed country deciding it's world policing time Nix Panicus posted:Libertarianism, but woke fully automated luxury anarcho-statist space communism (dengist-hoxhaist-posadist)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:00
|
|
|
Dancer posted:I am having an exchange with a normie in my personal life. Can someone who has a better grasp of the scale of these things tell me some guidelines for the following two questions? Are these ratios closer to 2:1 or 20:1? By design, a lot of this information is kept intentionally vague. There's 3 broad sets of funding that seems to be happening at the moment - military aid via the US and other governments directly, civilian aid via the World Bank and currency aid via the IMF Military aid from the US is authorized through a bill that was originally signed in 2015 (Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative) to authorize some amount of spending each year to bolster Ukrainian training and defense. In 2022, we enacted the Ukraine Lend-Lease Act" which seems to be a mix of both grants and loans. From what I can tell, the USAI is some type of grant program, but there's nothing that really seems clear about it. The mix is here: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040 quote:FY2022 and FY2023 security assistance packages were mostly funded via $48.7 billion in supplemental appropriations. So just taken at face value, nearly $5 billion are definitely loans. The $25Bn in PDA are likely grants, as Congress can set funding limits for Ukraine each fiscal year - the PDA allows for specific US stocks to be lended to Ukraine and then force US companies to replenish. The $18Bn via the USAI is a complete mystery to me, it could be grants, it could be loans. I can't find any information on it. Checking the language of the original bill in 2015 is just as vague - if you're curious enough to check yourself - USAI; P.L. 114-92, §1250. Then, there's the civilian loans to through the World Bank. These are a mix of grants and loans that are funded by western countries, with the US being the majority donor: https://www.worldbank.org/en/countr...ent%20partners. About $40 billion has been loaned/granted to Ukraine. The majority of these are loans, but with a few grants (ie: direct aid without repayment) thrown in through smaller programs. The major financing project is called PEACE, which has disbursed $25billion so far https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099120523163034530/pdf/BOSIB060227b340020a21e00fabf52b2e79.pdf This 25bn are entirely loans, and is how Ukraine is currently paying for the civilian workforce - pensions, teachers salaries, etc. Then, you have the IMF. They are currently massively indebted and reliant on them to keep the currency afloat as their economic engine has completely stalled - they cannot procure USD without dumping currency, which would lead to a disaster. Ukraine currently has a $122Bn aid program set with the IMF: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2023/12/11/pr23433-ukraine-2023-article-iv-consultation-and-the-second-review-under-the-eff-arrangement quote:Ukraine’s 48-month EFF arrangement, with access of SDR 11.6 billion (equivalent to US$15.6 billion, or about 577 percent of quota), was approved on March 31, 2023, and forms part of a US$122 billion support package for Ukraine. The authorities’ IMF-supported program aims to anchor policies that sustain fiscal, external, price and financial stability at a time of exceptionally high war-related uncertainty, support the economic recovery, as well as enhance governance and strengthen institutions to promote long-term growth in the context of reconstruction and Ukraine’s path to EU accession. This isn't necessarily a loan in the traditional sense - the IMF allows Ukraine to "draw" special kinds of currencies which allows them to keep their currency stable and therefore being able to purchase items internationally. For all practical purposes - this is a 122 billion dollar anchor that will weigh down Ukraine for generations to come. Even just looking at the IMFs projected balance sheet for Ukraine is insane - government debt will be exploding as these SDRs come with special types of interest that will remain on the books essentially forever. Public debt will literally double from 2022 to 2027. This is shock therapy, pure and simple. This doesn't even begin to consider the "structural reforms" that effectively mean gutting Ukrainian central banks ability to balance debt, cutting subsidies such as natural gas to households, removing certain worker protection and opening up the country to "direct foreign investment", which is just another euphemism for allowing London and New York to buy up Ukrainian infrastructure. So, to recap, in just these 3 ways, Ukraine is deeply in debt. Military hardware is being sent in uncertain ways, likely a mix of loans and grants, the World Bank is what's keeping the government and civilian running almost entirely via loans and Ukraine's currency situation will weigh down their central bank with debt if they want to stave off a Lebanon or Venezuela style collapse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:09
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:your reading comprehension sucks the US is in a long line of barbaric globe spanning empires descended from the warlike tribes of the far west occident. this miserable backwater hellhole birthed the demonic ideology of capitalist expansion and finance capital. you characterize your evil mindset as human nature because you discount anything outside your myopic view.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:15
|
|
|
Look, we're at the End of History. All possible ideologies have been discovered and capitalism is the only good one, therefore all nations going forward will be carbon copies of the US
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:21
|
|
|
The US being destroyed wouldn't solve all the world's problems but it would solve a lot of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:21
|
|
|
crepeface posted:the US is in a long line of barbaric globe spanning empires descended from the warlike tribes of the far west occident. this miserable backwater hellhole birthed the demonic ideology of capitalist expansion and finance capital. there were empires and mass murders before capitalism
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:25
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:imagine the US disappears magically overnight
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:25
|
|
|
Should you criticize American foreign policy three times consecutively an Anglophone spectre will appear through a tear in the Veil and demand to know if you think Russia or China would be better, like a paler and less charismatic Beetlejuice. We all know this - it has been scientifically proven beyond eight sigma. The question is, why? It is important first to note that the truth-value of whether or not Russia Or China would be Better is almost irrelevant, as the argument is Bullshit. We should suspect this immediately by the way the argument is usually forwarded - not "I think American foreign policy is Ok because the alternative is worse" but usually some variation of "oh, you think Russia or China would be better??" - the kind of sarcastic, deeply scandalized and rhetorical format so favored amongst oblivious assholes on most any topic. But in the academic parlance, Harry Frankfurt in On Bullshit defines bullshit: quote:It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describes reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. Where is Russia Or China? It appears on no maps. Russia and China appear on maps, but Russia Or China is non-physical, its geography exists in the realm of archetypes, the Foreign Oppressor. Obviously a world run by Russia would be different than a world run by China: the language spoken, the relative prevalence of Russian food, the proportion of idiots who define themselves as Dogs or Dragons instead of Virgins or Crabs. Russia Or China, by contrast, is nebulous, a place unknown in our experience; it has no culture and no characteristics beyond an opposition to freedom and axiomatically being Worse than America. Or perhaps, reasonably enough, whether Russia Or China is more like Russia or China is immaterial trivia compared to its brutality, its seething hatred of freedom, the environmental impact of its black crusade against the sun, the demographics of its creatures born from wombs of mud and dark sorcery. To understand this is to understand what we are dealing with. To assert that Russia Or China would be Worse is not a statement of fact, it can't be - We are talking about hypothetical actions of an near-imaginary enemy in a world that does not exist. It is rather a reaffirmation of conventional wisdom, a pledge of fealty to the status quo, and, in its common sarcastic question-form, a demand that the accused do the same or be immediately written off as an idiot and morally incompetent. It usually works, with the accused retreating into "well, no, but...". A claim that Russia Or China would be Worse (or Better) as supreme hegemon is a claim we cannot not to even attempt to take as a factual statement. Humorously, the people asking this question about Russia Or China generally pretend at being Hard Realists and are either Very Serious People or those who gain inordinate and possibly sexual pleasure from cosplaying as them on the internet. Yet it should be immediately obvious that it is not possible to objectively evaluate even a simple claim predicated on what is "better" - and this is far from a simple claim. We must define what genre we are working in when we ask about the world as it would be under Russia Or China. Specifically, are we asking for alternate history here, or for science fiction? How and when did they or will they take over? Did Russia conquer Europe? Did the Chinese learn to harness their chi to create incredible energy blasts? Will they take over in the future after irrational leftbros cut our military's daily budget of spoons to the point of making them too depressed to occupy hundreds of military bases in foreign countries? These are important questions for us to ask because they tell us the author's politics and presuppositions. Whether the Soviets finding a crashed UFO naturally leads to world domination, the war of all against all, or peaceful enlightenment is entirely predicated on your politics. Realistically, we are talking about a Russia (or China) that takes over as supreme hegemon after a major war and/or economic collapse renders America shattered. Even in the best case, this in the short and medium term would be Worse no matter if the actions of the replacement state were completely moral from then on, especially to Americans - the people who tend to make the argument. Otherwise, we are talking about realms of pure fantasy - worlds in which we pretend we used a time machine and went back many decades at least and changed something to put another nation on top, then claim to know definitively how this pretend universe would be. The material context in which a country exists and gains power is extremely relevant as to how it turns out. A postwar America that becomes dominant through the war economy and the destruction of the rest of the industrialized world develops differently and has different values than an America that becomes supreme through the use of nuclear conquest or Apache magic. I must really stress here that this question about Russia Or China is so meager and underdeveloped, however, that the question of how they come into power is not important. The point is actually to claim that the world under really-existing American hegemony is, if not the best of all possible worlds, at least within shouting distance. Recall Leibniz, the great Platonist, on this topic: quote:1. God has the idea of infinitely many universes. Sadly for Leibniz, shortly after expressing this argument his teeth were caved in by Schopenhauer wielding the Platonic form of a sledgehammer, causing him to henceforth have to eat through the Idea of a straw, a form of eating nonetheless vastly superior to our purely mortal chewing. But I digress. This argument can be secularized to describe the position we are engaging. There are infinitely many possible universes, America as it exists only exists in one, this America rules the world, and America is good; so, while there may be other worlds with better Americas, only a world with an America in charge could be the best of all possible worlds. This seems strange. Some of the ostensible benefits of a sole hyperpower would exist regardless of who was in charge. One benefit claimed is the "Pax Americana," that American dominance gives a safer and more stable world by acting as the sole acceptable initiator of force, patrolling the seas, generally acting as Hobbes' Leviathan. But wouldn't a world under Russian domination also operate under this benefit? It could be said that Russia would be Worse to those under its thumb, but the name of course comes from the Pax Romana. Ancient Rome had a human-rights record generally considered Worse to our modern standards than modern Russia, but still used military force to expedite international shipping and to keep internecine squabbling to a minimum. Isn't that the most important thing? Of course, we here assume that there is no other choice than some singular actor dominating the world for its own benefit, lest we be dismissed as unserious. A better question is what is it about America that makes it inherently so much better to rule the world than other countries, regardless of how they got there? Why are we more merciful and kind than other options? Is it our system of democracy, respected by all who participate in it, free of the legalized corruption endemic to lesser states, where votes are meaningful and the process fights to keep fingers off the scales? Is it our social welfare system, the envy of the world, which provides our most unlucky and impoverished citizens a life of respect and health and happiness, programs supported by the public will regardless of race or creed? Is it our policy towards immigrants and refugees, people fleeing poverty and horrors almost unimaginable to us? How we comfort them and share our safety and prosperity with a gentle decency? Is it how we strive to make every worker engaged in useful and productive labor in a safe and dignified environment, or how we strive ever more to make them the decision-makers in their workplaces? Is it our justice system, which thanks to all of the above boasts the lowest incarceration rate in the world, which has largely abolished institutional racism, and fights with vigilance against its last remnants? How we, regardless of our politics, consider the death penalty a moral savagery? Is it how we treat animals, how we eat meat only sparingly and how we led the fight for the abolition of the mechanized slaughter-factory? Is it how our citizenry weeps for the victims of its wars, rare and completely necessary as they are to maintain peace? How we refuse to even possess a nuclear stockpile, let alone use it - god forbid, against a civilian population. How our soldiers are professionals and realize that their lives are less important than those of the civilians in foreign countries they interact with? Or are all these too broad? In the end, is it the intellect, patience, empathy and decency of our people? In other countries people hit their children, joke about rape in public, believe in demons, rally for executions, cheer for wars, bash gays, support coups, and harbor terrorists. They treat women as second-class citizens, consume trash, pollute, support racist murder. But not here. Our citizens are svelte and kind and beautiful, and in the end, that's why we must rule.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:26
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:there were empires and mass murders before capitalism 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:28
|
|
|
[quote="gradenko_2000" post="539053692"] Should you criticize American foreign policy three times consecutively an Anglophone spectre will appear through a tear in the Veil and demand to know if you think Russia or China would be better, like a paler and less charismatic Beetlejuice. We all know this - it has been scientifically proven beyond eight sigma. The question is, why? It is important first to note that the truth-value of whether or not Russia Or China would be Better is almost irrelevant, as the argument is Bullshit. We should suspect this immediately by the way the argument is usually forwarded - not "I think American foreign policy is Ok because the alternative is worse" but usually some variation of "oh, you think Russia or China would be better??" - the kind of sarcastic, deeply scandalized and rhetorical format so favored amongst oblivious assholes on most any topic. But in the academic parlance, Harry Frankfurt in On Bullshit defines bullshit: Where is Russia Or China? It appears on no maps. Russia and China appear on maps, but Russia Or China is non-physical, its geography exists in the realm of archetypes, the Foreign Oppressor. Obviously a world run by Russia would be different than a world run by China: the language spoken, the relative prevalence of Russian food, the proportion of idiots who define themselves as Dogs or Dragons instead of Virgins or Crabs. Russia Or China, by contrast, is nebulous, a place unknown in our experience; it has no culture and no characteristics beyond an opposition to freedom and axiomatically being Worse than America. Or perhaps, reasonably enough, whether Russia Or China is more like Russia or China is immaterial trivia compared to its brutality, its seething hatred of freedom, the environmental impact of its black crusade against the sun, the demographics of its creatures born from wombs of mud and dark sorcery. To understand this is to understand what we are dealing with. To assert that Russia Or China would be Worse is not a statement of fact, it can't be - We are talking about hypothetical actions of an near-imaginary enemy in a world that does not exist. It is rather a reaffirmation of conventional wisdom, a pledge of fealty to the status quo, and, in its common sarcastic question-form, a demand that the accused do the same or be immediately written off as an idiot and morally incompetent. It usually works, with the accused retreating into "well, no, but...". A claim that Russia Or China would be Worse (or Better) as supreme hegemon is a claim we cannot not to even attempt to take as a factual statement. Humorously, the people asking this question about Russia Or China generally pretend at being Hard Realists and are either Very Serious People or those who gain inordinate and possibly sexual pleasure from cosplaying as them on the internet. Yet it should be immediately obvious that it is not possible to objectively evaluate even a simple claim predicated on what is "better" - and this is far from a simple claim. We must define what genre we are working in when we ask about the world as it would be under Russia Or China. Specifically, are we asking for alternate history here, or for science fiction? How and when did they or will they take over? Did Russia conquer Europe? Did the Chinese learn to harness their chi to create incredible energy blasts? Will they take over in the future after irrational leftbros cut our military's daily budget of spoons to the point of making them too depressed to occupy hundreds of military bases in foreign countries? These are important questions for us to ask because they tell us the author's politics and presuppositions. Whether the Soviets finding a crashed UFO naturally leads to world domination, the war of all against all, or peaceful enlightenment is entirely predicated on your politics. Realistically, we are talking about a Russia (or China) that takes over as supreme hegemon after a major war and/or economic collapse renders America shattered. Even in the best case, this in the short and medium term would be Worse no matter if the actions of the replacement state were completely moral from then on, especially to Americans - the people who tend to make the argument. Otherwise, we are talking about realms of pure fantasy - worlds in which we pretend we used a time machine and went back many decades at least and changed something to put another nation on top, then claim to know definitively how this pretend universe would be. The material context in which a country exists and gains power is extremely relevant as to how it turns out. A postwar America that becomes dominant through the war economy and the destruction of the rest of the industrialized world develops differently and has different values than an America that becomes supreme through the use of nuclear conquest or Apache magic. I must really stress here that this question about Russia Or China is so meager and underdeveloped, however, that the question of how they come into power is not important. The point is actually to claim that the world under really-existing American hegemony is, if not the best of all possible worlds, at least within shouting distance. Recall Leibniz, the great Platonist, on this topic: Sadly for Leibniz, shortly after expressing this argument his teeth were caved in by Schopenhauer wielding the Platonic form of a sledgehammer, causing him to henceforth have to eat through the Idea of a straw, a form of eating nonetheless vastly superior to our purely mortal chewing. But I digress. This argument can be secularized to describe the position we are engaging. There are infinitely many possible universes, America as it exists only exists in one, this America rules the world, and America is good; so, while there may be other worlds with better Americas, only a world with an America in charge could be the best of all possible worlds. This seems strange. Some of the ostensible benefits of a sole hyperpower would exist regardless of who was in charge. One benefit claimed is the "Pax Americana," that American dominance gives a safer and more stable world by acting as the sole acceptable initiator of force, patrolling the seas, generally acting as Hobbes' Leviathan. But wouldn't a world under Russian domination also operate under this benefit? It could be said that Russia would be Worse to those under its thumb, but the name of course comes from the Pax Romana. Ancient Rome had a human-rights record generally considered Worse to our modern standards than modern Russia, but still used military force to expedite international shipping and to keep internecine squabbling to a minimum. Isn't that the most important thing? Of course, we here assume that there is no other choice than some singular actor dominating the world for its own benefit, lest we be dismissed as unserious. A better question is what is it about America that makes it inherently so much better to rule the world than other countries, regardless of how they got there? Why are we more merciful and kind than other options? Is it our system of democracy, respected by all who participate in it, free of the legalized corruption endemic to lesser states, where votes are meaningful and the process fights to keep fingers off the scales? Is it our social welfare system, the envy of the world, which provides our most unlucky and impoverished citizens a life of respect and health and happiness, programs supported by the public will regardless of race or creed? Is it our policy towards immigrants and refugees, people fleeing poverty and horrors almost unimaginable to us? How we comfort them and share our safety and prosperity with a gentle decency? Is it how we strive to make every worker engaged in useful and productive labor in a safe and dignified environment, or how we strive ever more to make them the decision-makers in their workplaces? Is it our justice system, which thanks to all of the above boasts the lowest incarceration rate in the world, which has largely abolished institutional racism, and fights with vigilance against its last remnants? How we, regardless of our politics, consider the death penalty a moral savagery? Is it how we treat animals, how we eat meat only sparingly and how we led the fight for the abolition of the mechanized slaughter-factory? Is it how our citizenry weeps for the victims of its wars, rare and completely necessary as they are to maintain peace? How we refuse to even possess a nuclear stockpile, let alone use it - god forbid, against a civilian population. How our soldiers are professionals and realize that their lives are less important than those of the civilians in foreign countries they interact with? Or are all these too broad? In the end, is it the intellect, patience, empathy and decency of our people? In other countries people hit their children, joke about rape in public, believe in demons, rally for executions, cheer for wars, bash gays, support coups, and harbor terrorists. They treat women as second-class citizens, consume trash, pollute, support racist murder. But not here. Our citizens are svelte and kind and beautiful, and in the end, that's why we must rule. /quote
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:32
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:there is nothing new under the sun, yes tghere is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:34
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:imagine the US disappears magically overnight 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:36
|
|
|
sorry bozo the USA is the source of evil int his world. and thats the bottom line. Don;t like it? too bad hahahaha
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:37
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:there were empires and mass murders before capitalism but not this 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:43
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:there were empires and mass murders before capitalism the most important difference between the US and prior empires is that we are a financial empire - there will never be a situation where a single country will be the global reserve currency after the US. there can't even be a "pax" anything after the us starts declining. you could argue that it's a dangerous place to be - this is what drove the madness that led to WW1 - but on the other hand, the world cannot operate under the interests of a single country. it's far too diverse for that. how long will this temporary aberration last? once the sterling area for britain broke, coincidentally by the americans, at the Bretton Woods conference, britain ceased to be a empire. the british, as a trade empire, needed raw material and commodity goods. the romans conquered and pillaged. we don't need physical goods, we don't need to physically pillage - we just simply weaponize our currency and markets against the world. you cannot buy oil if you are sanctioned from obtaining the USD or Euro. you cannot even buy food once we confiscate your foreign reserves - we can starve you out without firing a single shot or setting up a single seige weapon, just ask Afghanistan after we left. whatever comes next will be unpredictable for everyone involved, and how much of it will be "better" or "worse" misses the point. development of nations will continue, just this time without someone in washington being able to pull a lever that would collapse their country economically because they decided to protect their nascent industries from being gobbled up by american financial interests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:46
|
|
|
You don't understand! Its the End of History! Everything is going to be the way it is now forever with no change because this is it, this is the end state! All we can do is shuffle the labels around a little!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:49
|
|
|
lol the NED baby brain is coming from inside the thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:50
|
|
|
dk2m posted:This isn't necessarily a loan in the traditional sense - the IMF allows Ukraine to "draw" special kinds of currencies which allows them to keep their currency stable and therefore being able to purchase items internationally. For all practical purposes - this is a 122 billion dollar anchor that will weigh down Ukraine for generations to come. Even just looking at the IMFs projected balance sheet for Ukraine is insane - government debt will be exploding as these SDRs come with special types of interest that will remain on the books essentially forever. Public debt will literally double from 2022 to 2027. This is shock therapy, pure and simple. This is whats so sad about the whole thing. Even if somehow a miracle occurs and Ukraine triumphs militarily they're still completely hosed both demographically and economically. Ukraine has already lost, its just a question of who gets to claim the corpse
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 07:58
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:but not this give the romans coal power stations and see how it goes. protip: probably badly, given that widespread airborne lead pollution first became a thing due to roman smelting operations, long before we gave it another go with leaded gasoline the problem is technological advancement outpacing societal ability to use that technology responsibly, not that society now is inherently more terrible dk2m posted:the most important difference between the US and prior empires is that we are a financial empire - there will never be a situation where a single country will be the global reserve currency after the US. there can't even be a "pax" anything after the us starts declining. you could argue that it's a dangerous place to be - this is what drove the madness that led to WW1 - but on the other hand, the world cannot operate under the interests of a single country. it's far too diverse for that. how long will this temporary aberration last? once the sterling area for britain broke, coincidentally by the americans, at the Bretton Woods conference, britain ceased to be a empire. finally a reasonable take on the american empire, even if I don't completely agree I would argue that financial domination isn't as unique as you think it is either and instead is just the currently most convenient means of imperialism. If and when US financial dominance collapses, I don't think there's zero chance of a new world reserve currency emerging. How things go very much depends on whether the remaining major powers prefer to attach themselves to whichever one emerges as the next most powerful to emulate the current status quo. Even if a multipolar order emerges, we'll likely see economically integrated blocs emerging, merely replicating the problem of one major power having a veto over its satellites, either by financial means or through brute force. To avoid that fate, you need to control one or more of those blocs to ensure it's actively working towards a new international order that rejects imperialism while being well-organised and well-defended enough to not be picked apart by imperialist powers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 08:10
|
|
|
https://reactionary.international/cases/pregnancy-crisis-centers-in-south-africa-and-the-global-spread-of-the-religious-right/en/ Introduction From vast, misinformation-peddling networks of ‘crisis pregnancy clinics’ to conferences convening and coaching anti-LGBTQ+ legislators, the US religious right is exporting ‘family values’ around the world under the veil of anti-colonialism and national sovereignty. Often, this is an illegal imposition. In countries like South Africa, ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ masquerade as abortion-providing clinics while illegally counselling women against abortion services. In Ecuador, US-affiliated evangelical organizations actively support conversion therapy—a practice Ecuador recognizes as torture. Elsewhere, these groups fan the flames of homophobia and anti-abortionism, providing leaders in the Global South with strategies and misleading information linking homosexuality and abortion to pedophilia. Beyond these straightforward conferences, conservative religious groups spread misinformation online and in person, fear-mongering and poisoning public sentiment. After fanning the flames of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and laying the groundwork for legislation in countries like Ghana and Uganda, evangelical organisations shirk their responsibility and decry their African affiliates for going ‘too far’. The reality is that the legislation and human rights abuses grabbing headlines are the present-day manifestations of a decades-long campaign to enforce the Christian ‘natural family’ worldwide. This enforcement has material, often violent effects on its principal targets: women and LGBTQ+ people worldwide. South Africa is but one example of the work done by this larger network. Pregnancy Crisis Centers in South Africa In 2018, an undercover reporter with Bhekisisa entered Amato Pregnancy Counseling Centre in Arcadia, Pretoria, posing as a young woman seeking an abortion.1 The center, run by Amato, advertised itself as providing women with information on their options. Despite this advertising, the reporter was denied information on where to obtain an abortion. Instead, she was asked what would have happened had Nelson Mandela been aborted and told that abortion would be ‘murder’. The clinic volunteers also warned her about the risks of ‘post-abortion syndrome’, a condition its proponents claim is characterised by PTSD-like symptoms such as nightmares and depression, all fuelled by regret or abortion-induced trauma. Medical practitioners find no evidence for the existence of this condition.2 Two years later, undercover reporters with openDemocracy had similar experiences at other South African pregnancy crisis centers.3 Their visits highlighted a pattern in these centers’ operations across South Africa. Across the board, these centers rely on a combination of misinformation and misdirection, promising neutrality and instead subjecting women seeking information to guilt, manipulation, and fear-mongering. Because of their neutral facades, some centers can operate in South African hospitals, with hospital administrators unaware of their practices; others, like those run by Amato, run on university grounds and are advertised to students as a regular part of abortion counselling services. These reporters uncovered ‘directive counselling’, a direct violation of South Africa’s 1996 Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act. This law, one of the most liberal in Africa, settled women’s right to an abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy and allows further abortions up to 20 weeks depending on a variety of circumstances, including a woman’s socio-economic situation. It prohibits directive counselling on abortion: any abortion counselling must provide sufficient information to facilitate a woman’s informed choice. Crisis pregnancy centers claim this is what they are doing, although no woman entering these clinics will be given any information on how or where to obtain an abortion. In 2020, the South African Health Department claimed it would take action against these centers for this violation.4 These clinics and their practices are the South African manifestation of a model deployed throughout the world. South African crisis pregnancy centers form part of a network of over 75 anti-abortion centers operating under an umbrella organisation called Pregnancy Help Network—a misleading name for an organisation previously known as Africa Cares for Life. This renaming is another example of these centers’ feigned neutrality. Through the network South African centers are affiliated with and financed by Heartbeat International, an Ohio-based evangelical organisation that supports over 3,000 such centers in 90 countries worldwide.5 The model these centers operate with—luring women who seek abortions by claiming to provide ‘information’ and instead spread fear—is one that Heartbeat pioneered domestically amidst anti-Roe activism in the 1970s and has since exported worldwide.6 It is cheap, replicable, effective, and difficult to hold accountable. ... Anti-Abortion in Africa Overview Heartbeat International is not alone in its anti-abortion efforts. As a collective, US-based religious anti-abortion organisations have spent over $19 million in Africa since 2008.38 The leading anti-abortion spenders in Africa are the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association ($7.5 million between 2007 and 2020) and Human Life International (over $4 million in the same period).39 The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s spending in Africa is difficult to trace, more so since it re-formed as an association of churches in 201540—an increasingly common practice for religious conservative organisations evading scrutiny.41 Anti-abortion as ‘Anti-colonial’ Like Heartbeat, Human Life International trains and funds a network of ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ around the world, with a focus on Latin America and a clear presence in Africa. In 2023, Human Life International claimed that its anti-abortion trainings had reached 10,000 African seminarians: they describe this as part of an effort against the ‘targeting’ of Africans by pro-choice organisations in the West and claim that ‘Africa’s population has long been intentionally targeted for decimation’.42 Both Heartbeat and Human Life International are members of the World Congress of Families, an influential anti-LGBT and anti-abortion organization rooted in the US religious right. The WCF has historically been a strong proponent of the idea of a ‘demographic winter’—a belief that European populations are in decline because of abortions, contraception, homosexuality, and women in the workplace.43 Though ‘demographic winter’ was first developed through collaboration between American Allan Carlson and Russians Anatoly Antonov and Victor Medkov,44 WCF and allies such as HLI and Heartbeat International have repurposed this messaging into an ‘anti-colonial’ rallying cry against abortion in Africa. Examples of this may be found in WCF’s pro-family conferences in Africa, which carry names like “Attempts by International Agencies and Western Donors to Force Abortion, Contraception, Smaller Families and Homosexual Rights on Africa”.45 They advance the claim that contraception and abortion advocates are engaged in African population control and that the Christian ‘natural family’ is essentially African. These conferences are often attended by African legislators, religious leaders, and those close to them—the Ugandan and Nigerian first ladies have been known to attend.46 ... Building Domestic Movements The anti-abortion religious right does not just work unilaterally in Africa: a large part of their disproportionate influence in the continent comes from their ability to train domestic actors and encourage the growth of local organisations. One such example is the Family Policy Institute, a South African organisation which aims to advance the cause of the ‘family’ and a ‘Judeo-Christian worldview’.56 The FPI was founded by Errol Naidoo after he attended a 6-month training program run by the Family Research Council in Washington DC, and today enjoys the support of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).57 Naidoo’s two TV shows, Watchmen on the Wall and Salt & Light, are part of the US-based Trinity Broadcasting Network—the world’s largest religious television network. Naidoo has since appeared at the Family Research Council Values Voter Summit alongside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.58 Domestic actors like Naidoo receive training and funding from international, often American organisations on the religious right. They can slot into an existing network—to have their television shows on established, far-reaching TV networks—and have their causes amplified by established actors like the ADF and the Family Research Council. This is not dissimilar to the network and support offered to CPCs by Heartbeat International and Human Life International. ‘The Natural Family’ in Africa: Evangelicals Beyond Abortion Overview: A Continent for the Family Beyond the issue of abortion, a wide network of organisations on the religious right have positioned themselves as defenders of African values: organisations like the World Congress for Families and Family Watch International argue that abortion, contraception, and LGBTQ+ rights are part of the West’s colonial agenda in Africa. The groups’ rhetoric often relies on misinformation suggesting that homosexuality is ‘forced’ on Africans as a colonial attempt to depopulate the continent.59 They frame themselves as helping African leaders use their power at multilateral institutions like the UN and the African Union. The World Congress of Families member most infamous for their work in Africa is Family Watch International, a small Arizona-based organisation co-founded by Sharon Slater after she attended the 2nd World Congress of Families Conference in 1999.60 This 1999 Conference was co-sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Filing with the IRS under ‘Global Helping to Advance Women & Children,’ FWI rarely makes more than $500,000 a year.61 Within Africa, FWI spent only $36,919 between 2008 and 2020.62 Despite these small numbers, FWI has an outsized impact on policy in the continent and beyond. Every year, Family Watch International hosts a Global Family Policy Forum for UN delegates, often targeting African delegates, out of Sharon Slater’s own home.63 There, FWI trains African delegates in ‘natural family’ talking points to deploy against pro-LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights causes at the UN and at home. Family Watch International holds consultative status at the UN Economic and Social Council. Slater herself chairs the UN Family Rights Caucus. Anti-LGBT+: Legislating to ‘Kill the Gays’ Family Watch International is most famous for Sharon Slater’s close ties to President Museveni of Uganda and its role in the anti-LGBT+ bills passed there in 2009 and 2023. Martin Ssempa, a conservative Ugandan pastor who famously campaigned for the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’,64 was previously FWI’s African Coordinator.65 During this time, he worked closely with US Evangelical Scott Lively to draft Uganda’s 2009 anti-homosexuality bill.66 Lively himself is famous for his anti-LGBTQ+ campaigning and is the author of numerous books claiming that homosexuals fuelled the Nazi Party and, therefore, caused the Holocaust. SMUG, an association of LGBT+ organisations in Uganda, took Lively to court for his involvement in the bill.67 Slater herself was also involved in correspondence around drafting the initial 2009 bill.68 The main drafter of the legislation was David Bahati, a Ugandan MP and member of the secretive Fellowship Foundation, also known as ‘The Family’. Bahati claims to have been inspired to pursue the legislation after a conversation with Fellowship members at the 2008 Uganda National Prayer Breakfast—the Ugandan counterpart to the Fellowship’s annual National Prayer Breakfast attended by politicians in the US.69 Bahati has regularly given interviews claiming that millions of dollars are invested in Uganda to finance recruiting children to homosexuality.70 The Family tried to distance themselves from Bahati following backlash to the bill,71 though members have independently voiced support for related legislation since then.72 Also involved in the Ugandan legislation was the Family Research Council (FRC), an evangelical think tank which at times has been a subsidiary of Focus on the Family, another anti-LGBT+ organization which supports conversion therapy at home and abroad. In 2010, the FRC spent $25,000 lobbying US legislators to reject a resolution condemning the Ugandan bill.73 Family Watch International has tried to distance itself from the 2023 legislation in Uganda. Though FWI ultimately severed ties with Ssempa because of his calls to ‘kill the gays’. In 2023 Slater was in the WhatsApp group chat in which Ugandan MP Thomas Tayebwa announced his intention to re-introduce the anti-homosexuality bill.74 If Family Watch International disagrees with anti-LGBT+ legislation, it does little to course-correct: in 2023, the FWI co-sponsored “The First African Regional Inter-Parliamentary Conference and Dialogue on the Global Challenges to the Protection of the African Child, the African Family, and African Culture and Values” in Entebbe, Uganda. This conference was attended by Peter Kaluma, a Kenyan MP leading the call for an anti-LGBT bill in Kenya.75 Anti-LGBT+: Embedding Hate in Constitutions In 2010, Kenya’s constitution was redrafted and approved by a public referendum. In 2013, the Zimbabwean constitution underwent a similar process. In both cases, Human Life International and the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) worked to constitutionally establish prohibitions on abortion and homosexuality.76 The ACLJ was established in 1990 as a conservative answer to the American Civil Liberties Union, aiming to entrench or ‘protect’ Christian values in the US legal system. Jay Sekulow has served as the ACLJ’s chief counsel since 1991—though he is perhaps more famous as former US president Donald Trump’s personal attorney. In Africa, the ACLJ has two branches: the African Center for Law and Justice in Zimbabwe (operational since 2012) and the East African Centre for Law and Justice in Kenya (operational since 2010).77 These two branches operate beyond Kenya and Zimbabwe in neighbouring countries such as Uganda, Rwanda, and Malawi. To quote the East African Centre for Law and Justice, these organisations aim to lobby legislators “to take the Christian's views into consideration as they draft legislation and policies”.78 In Kenya, the ACLJ supported its East African Centre for Law and Justice and Human Life International in lobbying lawmakers to include a ban on abortion and homosexuality in the 2010 Kenyan draft constitution. When this didn’t work, they tried and failed to convince Kenyans to reject the draft constitution in the national referendum.79 The ACLJ’s work in Zimbabwe followed a similar course. They worked with local actors to ‘sensitise’ church leaders to the issues they should take a public stand on and lobbied to prohibit homosexuality in the draft constitution. In Zimbabwe, however, the ACLJ was more successful: the constitution, approved in 2013, explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage and narrowly allows for abortions in restricted circumstances. However, the document is silent on homosexuality itself.80 It was not enough that homosexuality had been criminalised in Zimbabwe since 2006—the ACLJ fought to close off any future openings. These efforts in Zimbabwe involved aligning itself with the Mugabe government, such as Jay Sekulow’s meetings with Vice President John Nkomo amidst the constitutional debates.81 In both cases, the ACLJ and Human Life International worked to achieve African constitutions in line with beliefs informed by their own US constitutional grievances. Lobbying against same-sex marriage and adoption, for example, is hardly a reaction to LGBT+ campaigning. In many cases, pro-LGBT+ activists themselves had not yet even considered pursuing these legal protections. Abstinence-Only Sex Education Focus on the Family runs an African division out of South Africa, Focus on the Family Africa. Like much of Focus on the Family’s work, FoTF Africa’s array of marriage counselling, parenting workshops, general counselling, and anti-HIV/AIDs work presents itself as harmless Christian family support. However, many of its materials on strengthening marriage and parent-child relationships rely heavily on reinforcing strict gender roles. This is the ‘clean’ campaign for the ‘natural family’. FotF Africa’s ‘No Apologies’ HIV/AIDs education programme is most clearly undergirded by the Christian right’s ‘natural family’ ideology. This programme advocates abstinence-only HIV/AIDs prevention—a method that is at best ineffective83 and worst causes added harm to young people.84 Across sub-Saharan Africa, Christian-led abstinence-only programmes demonise homosexuality and discourage the use of condoms. These efforts only feed a narrative that portrays homosexuality as a dangerous ‘behaviour’ in and of itself. In South Africa, the No Apologies program claims to work with the Department of Education.85 The ties between the religious right’s HIV/AIDs prevention work and abstinence-only education are not new: President George W. Bush’s lauded Presidents’ Emergency Plan for AIDs Relief (PEPFAR) dedicated one-third of its funds to abstinence-based efforts. This specified allocation continued until 2016. $1.4 billion of PEPFAR funding was spent on abstinence and fidelity programmes for HIV prevention.86 Research suggests that these efforts did not work.87 More than being ineffective, PEPFAR funds for abstinence-only education frequently went to homophobic pastors and organisations. Pastor Martin Ssempa, in addition to being an anti-LGBT+ activist and proponent of ‘kill the gays’ legislation, was a 2004 sub-partner of PEPFAR.88 No longer content to promote their abstinence-only programmes, a new focus of the religious right is a campaign against ‘comprehensive sexuality education.’ Comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) is a broad term describing education on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health. It often discusses contraception, consent, and STIs such as HIV/AIDs. Anti-CSE activists claim that wealthy Western countries are using it as a vehicle to push ‘gender ideology’ and sexualise children. Among the chief anti-CSE activists are Family Watch International, C-Fam, and CitizenGo, who all oppose CSE initiatives on both international and national levels.89 They claim that CSE is ‘a recipe for sexual anarchy’ and take issue with CSE programs’ acceptance of abortion and homosexuality.90 Many of their materials specifically compare it to abstinence-focused sexual education. Family Watch International has led the charge against CSE. The organization has lobbied most forcefully in Africa, where at the 2022 African Bar Association Conference founder Sharon Slater claimed that CSE exposes children to necrophilia and bestiality across Africa.91 FWI has particularly targeted the Education Plus program, an initiative aimed at HIV prevention among young women across 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. At the 2022 ABA Conference, Slater asked African lawyers to lobby their governments to disinvolve themselves from the programme—a programme these same governments helped shape. Family Watch International frames this squarely as an issue of African ‘national sovereignty’ against the West’s ‘sexual social recolonization’.92 CitizenGo’s activism against CSE in Kenya adopts FWI’s ‘Stop CSE’ talking points almost word-for-word.93 ... Many Ways to be Right: the Religious Right’s Global Networks Latin America and Asia US-based organisations on the religious right have spent $75.9 million in Latin America, $14.3 million in the Middle East, and $88.1 million in Asia on anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ efforts.97 Many of these actors are the same actors operating in Africa: Heartbeat International and Human Life International both operate extensively in Latin America, as do Family Watch International, Focus on the Family, Alliance Defending Freedom International, and the American Center for Law and Justice, among others. As in Africa, Latin America and Asia, most anti-abortion funding coming from US organisations is used for large networks of crisis pregnancy centers, a model that HLI brought to Latin America in the 1980s.98 Beyond this network, Human Life International has also lobbied against loosening abortion restrictions. In e-mails to funders, HLI’s president took credit for EL Salvadors’ legislators’ refusal to legalise abortion.99 Heartbeat International began expanding its efforts in Latin America in 2013, focusing particularly on Central America.100 In Asia, discussions at Heartbeat International’s 2001 annual conference prompted the establishment of the Heartbeat International Philippines Center in 2004, now named Pregnancy Support Services of Asia (PSSA).101 This re-brand mirrors that of the Pregnancy Help Network in South Africa, and the naming strategies anti-abortion activists encourage for U.S CPCs. PSSA aims to be an umbrella organisation for crisis pregnancy centers across Asia. Heartbeat has continued to support PSSA with training and funding, as with its African networks. For its part, since 1991 Human Life International has organised the Asia-Pacific Congress (ASPAC) on Faith, Life and Family, drawing delegates from across Central, South, and East Asia for training on anti-abortion messaging and tactics.102 Heartbeat and HLI are joined in Asia and Latin America by Focus on the Family, Exodus Global Alliance, and ADF International. In Latin America, Focus on the Family has promoted practitioners of ‘conversion therapy’ in Costa Rica, where it operates as Enfoque a la Família.103 Similar practices are supported by Exodus Global Alliance, which operates in Latin America as Exodus Latinoamérica. Exodus Global Alliance maintains offices in Mexico and Brazil, from which it supports conversion therapy in countries like Ecuador, where conversion therapy is considered torture. The two groups sometimes work together. Both organisations have been found to refer young gay men to psychologists offering conversion therapy.104 ADF International regularly takes cases in Latin America and Asia. In Latin America, ADF clients have included Mexican congressmen accused of transphobia105 and opponents of a Chilean children’s rights bill.106 ADF International is also involved in Honduran activism opposing a proposed law to counteract violence against women.107 This opposition is rooted in a belief that the law is a ‘Trojan Horse’ for gender ideology and abortion access. In both Latin America and Asia, ADF International runs the Areté Academy, a months-long course that provides delegates with participants development to apply a ‘biblical worldview’ to address national, regional, and domestic issues.108 On completion of the course, participants join ADF International’s network. Europe: Anti-Abortion, Anti-LGBT+ These same organisations have long-term involvement in Europe, where they rally anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ forces. Movimento per la Vita (“Movement for Life”) is the biggest anti-abortion network in Italy: it has been affiliated with Heartbeat International since 2014, earning $99,810 in funding.109 Movimento per la Vita is part of a group of anti-abortion activists trying to change Italy’s law on abortion to increase hurdles and add a requirement that patients hear the fetal ‘heartbeat’. In Italian public hospitals, this network adopts the same practices as Heartbeat affiliates in Africa, the United States, and Latin America: it shames women and peddles ‘post-abortion syndrome’ and cancer fears.110 As in the United States and South Africa, Italian anti-abortion centers outnumber abortion centers.111 In Hungary, Romania, Poland, and Ukraine, Heartbeat International has targeted Ukrainian refugees in its fundraising efforts, promising increased resources to local affiliates. American Evangelical legal associations also operate heavily in Europe, leading the charge against hate speech bills and same-sex marriage. The American Center for Law and Justice, led by Trump attorney Jay Sekulow, and the Alliance Defending Freedom spent a combined $29 million in Europe between 2008 and 2018.112 The ACLJ’s European branch, the ECLJ, has supported Italian cases against gay marriage.113 ADF International, for its part, has unsuccessfully defended state sterilisation of trans individuals before the ECJ, arguing that “equal dignity does not mean that every sexual orientation warrants equal respect”.114 ADF International has operated similarly in Romania.115 Beyond this legal support, ADF International is a regular co-sponsor of Agenda Europe summits.116 Evangelicalism at the UN The global religious right’s regional efforts form part of a larger goal aimed at undermining the human rights work of multilateral institutions like the UN. Efforts such as FWI’s UN program for African delegates both reflect the strength of the religious right’s network and the adaptability of its messaging. The language adopted across these organisations, be they operating in Latin America, Africa, Asia, or Europe, is one of the ‘natural family’, ‘population control’, and attempts at control from rich leftists in the US and the UN. A powerful example of the religious right’s global entanglements is the Political Network for Values (PNfV), a large organising network for the global far-right, rooted in a trans-Atlantic alliance between conservative Catholic organisers in Latin America and Spain.117 Launched in 2014, PNfV is dedicated to pursuing a narrow religious conservative definition of the family. Spearheaded by the Spanish Fundación Valores y Sociedad, PNfV also enjoys considerable support from FWI, ADF, the Heritage Foundation, and the International Organization for the Family, the parent organisation for WCF. Sharon Slater of FWI and Brian S Brown of WCF both sit on PNfV’s Board. There, they are joined by José Antonio Kast, who took over as President from Katalin Novák. Many of PNfV’s Committee of Experts are from the ADF and the Population Research Institute. Further, many players in PNfV’s founding are also tied to CitizenGo. PNfV has also enjoyed support for its conferences from the Holy See and the Guatemalan and Hungarian governments.118 Much of PNfV’s activism focuses on narrowing the scope of existing human rights at the UN. Most notably, they are advocates of the Geneva Consensus Declaration. This ‘declaration’ seeks to ‘renew’ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by fighting against abortion. It was a pet project of Mike Pence and at the UN was co-sponsored by Hungary, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, and Uganda.119 This ‘declaration’ is broadly supported by WCF members, among them AFD and Heartbeat International: in March of 2023, Heartbeat International spoke at an event at the UN in favour of the ‘Geneva Consensus Declaration’.120 South Africa: How Heartbeat Fills the Gaps This global network has damaging material effects: LGBTQ+ people and those seeking abortions face a wave of inauthentic, strategic misinformation designed to strip them of their freedom and, at the extreme, their lives. Despite South African officials’ claims in 2020 that they would act against crisis pregnancy clinics and their violations of South African laws, as of 2024 many of these centers continue to run outside of South Africa’s largest cities. These centers are located in majority Black areas, and often in poorer communities. This placement is no accident: crisis pregnancy centers are strategically placed to take advantage of South Africa’s struggles to provide abortions within its health care system. These practices have allowed Human Life International and Heartbeat International to operate to great effect, yet with limited domestic or international publicity. They undermine abortion provision in practice, if not in the headlines. Though on paper, South Africa’s 1996 legislation makes it home to one of the most liberal abortion regimes in Africa and, by some measures, the world, in practice the South African healthcare system fails to deliver actual abortions. Despite this legislation, very few eligible health centers actually perform abortions in South Africa because of widespread physician misuse of ‘conscientious objection’—narrowly permitted by the 1996 legislation and, again, an issue that has been unaddressed by the Health Department.121 Racial, economic, and regional disparities are very clear. Heartbeat International and other US-based anti-abortion organisations take advantage of this. The crisis pregnancy center model is designed to take advantage of gaps in abortion provision, redirecting well-intentioned funds and luring in women seeking a real choice. Conclusion South Africa isn’t alone in struggling with the domestic implications of the global, religious right. Crisis pregnancy centers are but one example of a religious-based model being exported worldwide: from networks advocating conversion therapy to legal opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, US-funded actors in the religious right-wing have created large networks and conference systems to share tactics and misinformation. At times, these networks find support and a voice in national governments, as is the case in countries like Uganda, where the US religious right has spent years fostering relationships and coaching legislators in hate. Often, these actors operate at the grassroots, taking advantage of digital fora to spread lies and target pro-choice, pro-LGBT+ adversaries. In both cases, those peddling hate worldwide can rely on funding, strategy, and support from US-based Christian conservatives. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 08:12
|
|
|
tl;dr destroy the usd and paper tigers across whole continents will crumble and/or lose momentum
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 08:13
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:the problem is technological advancement outpacing societal ability to use that technology responsibly, not that society now is inherently more terrible panned right over the us question  i win
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 08:14
|
|
|
this page is a pro read 🤭
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 08:14
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:sorry bozo the USA is the source of evil int his world. and thats the bottom line. Don;t like it? too bad hahahaha meet the new boss, same as the old boss. unless you have a plan beyond "what if new boss???"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 08:21
|
|
|
i answered the question “would the world be better if the us disappeared” with absolute accuracy in a single pic, thats what we call winning
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 08:24
|
|
|
If destroying the US wouldn't make thing any better or worse why are you so intent on preventing me from destroying it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 08:25
|
|
|
ive won this brain war. better luck next time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 08:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:meet the new boss, same as the old boss. unless you have a plan beyond "what if new boss???" Why do you insist the new boss would be the same as the old boss? Back up your assertion that any nation could be as depraved and pervasive as the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 08:30
|
|