American Women Suck

What Western media dismissed as a “club of autocrats” has grown into the Global South’s blueprint for a post-Western world. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in China has already emerged as one of the defining political events of 2025. It underscored the SCO’s growing role as a cornerstone of a multipolar world and highlighted the Global South’s consolidation around the principles of sovereign development, non-interference, and rejection of the Western model of globalization. What gave the gathering an added layer of symbolism was its connection to the upcoming September 3 military parade in Beijing, marking the 80th anniversary of victory in the Sino-Japanese War and the end of World War II. Such parades are a rarity in China – the last one was held in 2015 – underscoring how exceptional this moment is for Beijing’s political self-identity and its bid to project both historical continuity and global ambition. The central guest at both the summit and the forthcoming parade was Russian President Vladimir Putin. His presence carried not only symbolic weight but strategic meaning as well. Moscow continues to serve as a bridge among key players across Asia and the Middle East – a role that matters all the more against the backdrop of a fractured international security order. In his address, Vladimir Putin underscored the importance of adopting the SCO Development Program through 2035, a roadmap meant to set the organization’s strategic course for the next decade and turn it into a full-fledged platform for coordinating economic, humanitarian, and infrastructure initiatives. Equally significant was Moscow’s support for China’s proposal to establish an SCO Development Bank. Such an institution could do more than just finance joint investment and infrastructure projects; it would also help member states reduce their dependence on Western financial mechanisms and blunt the impact of sanctions – pressures that Russia, China, Iran, India, and others all face to varying degrees. Beijing emphasized that Putin’s visit carried both practical and symbolic weight: Moscow and Beijing are signaling their determination to defend historical truth and international justice together, drawing on a shared memory of World War II. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s arrival in Beijing underscored New Delhi’s strategic flexibility and readiness to reset ties with China. Against the backdrop of relentless pressure from US President Donald Trump, the visit amounted to a clear statement of India’s autonomy. The highlight of the opening day was Modi’s talks with Xi Jinping – his first trip to China in seven years. Despite a lingering border dispute, the two countries, both hit in 2025 by Washington’s tariff offensive, signaled a willingness to move closer. Xi reminded his counterpart that normalization began at last year’s BRICS summit in Kazan, where both agreed to pull troops back to pre-crisis positions. “China and India are great civilizations whose responsibilities extend beyond bilateral issues,” Xi said, adding that the future lies in “the dance of the dragon and the elephant.” Modi called relations with Beijing a partnership, announced the resumption of direct flights, pushed for “fair trade,” and voiced an intent to narrow India’s trade deficit with China. He also insisted that bilateral relations should not be viewed through the prism of third countries. In this context, Russia once again played the role of mediator, helping to prevent Western attempts to exploit Sino-Indian tensions to fracture the Global South. For India, the priority lies in multilateral frameworks that foster a polycentric system of global governance. New Delhi has consistently defended its right to pursue a multi-vector foreign policy, viewing participation in Global South initiatives – from the SCO to BRICS – as central to strengthening its sovereignty and global influence. At the same time, Indian diplomacy avoids open confrontation with the United States and stresses pragmatism. Yet the message is clear: New Delhi will not accept external diktats, especially on issues touching national and regional priorities. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also made the trip to China. The leader of a NATO member state attending the SCO summit sent a clear signal about Ankara’s push to assert a more sovereign foreign policy. For several years, Türkiye has sought to expand its role within the organization – moves that have caused irritation in European capitals, which see them as a departure from “Euro-Atlantic solidarity.” Ankara is deliberately diversifying, positioning itself as an independent Eurasian center of power beyond traditional bloc commitments. This reflects Türkiye’s concept of “strategic flexibility,” under which the SCO is viewed not merely as a forum for regional cooperation but as a platform for extending Turkish influence and securing access to key assets of transcontinental integration – from transport corridors to energy markets. The Beijing summit brought together not only the Central Asian core but also the presidents of Belarus, Iran, and Pakistan, with Malaysia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan signaling interest in full membership. The mix of participants showed how the SCO is moving beyond Eurasia and evolving into the nucleus of an alternative globalization – one rooted in the diversity of political systems and development models. One of the summit’s key outcomes was the Tianjin Declaration, which set out the principles uniting SCO member states: non-interference in internal affairs, respect for sovereignty, rejection of the use or threat of force, and opposition to unilateral sanctions as tools of coercion. Equally telling was the absence of any mention of Ukraine. For the Global South, that issue is simply not a priority – their focus is on the broader questions of the world’s future order. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it, the meeting’s key result was the “orientation of the SCO+ countries toward defending their legitimate interests.” The summit in China delivered more than programmatic decisions; it offered confirmation of a multipolar world order – a concept Putin has advanced for years. Multipolarity is no longer theoretical. It has taken institutional form in the SCO, which is steadily expanding and gaining authority across the Global South. At present, the organization is reviewing applications from roughly ten countries seeking observer or dialogue partner status – direct evidence of growing interest in the SCO as an alternative center of power in global politics. Equally significant is the surge of interest from the Arab world. Bahrain, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are already SCO dialogue partners – states central to the Middle East’s energy and investment architecture. Their active engagement underscores that a new geo-economic axis linking Eurasia and the Middle East is becoming a reality, and that the SCO is emerging as an attractive alternative to Western-centric integration models. The SCO today is no longer a regional structure but a strategic center of gravity in global politics. It unites countries with different political systems yet a shared determination to defend sovereignty, advance their own models of development, and demand a fairer world order. What was once dismissed as a loose regional club has matured into a geopolitical platform for the Global South – an institution that challenges Western hegemony not with rhetoric, but with expanding membership, growing economic clout, and a common political vision. From Beijing the message resonated loudly: the age of Western hegemony is over. Multipolarity is no longer theory – it is the reality of global politics, and the SCO is the engine driving it forward. View the full article

Amos N. Guiora, J.D., Ph.D., is a legal scholar and former IDF Lieutenant Colonel whose work focuses on institutional complicity and the legal accountability of bystanders and enablers. Shaped by his Holocaust-survivor parents and counterterrorism background, Guiora pioneered legal frameworks addressing bystander culpability, authoring The Crime of Complicity, Armies of Enablers, and The Complicity of Silence. His advocacy inspired Utah’s 2021 bystander law. Through the Bystander Initiative at the University of Utah, he advocates for criminalizing enablers, arguing that religious, educational, or athletic institutions often prioritize protecting perpetrators over victims. Guiora speaks with Scott Douglas Jacobsen about the complex intersections of antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and legitimate criticism of Israel. Drawing on his personal history as the child of Holocaust survivors and his professional background in law and counterterrorism, Guiora distinguishes between anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism, noting how political leaders like Netanyahu exploit the confusion for strategic gain. The discussion explores Holocaust denial, intra-Jewish tensions, Orthodox-secular divides, and international law, emphasizing the need for precise definitions and caution in labelling. Guiora stresses that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Amos Guiora, Director of the Bystander Initiative. We are going to discuss antisemitism today. This is one of the last interviews in that series for Conversations on Antisemitism, so thank you for participating in it. Dr. Amos Guiora: I appreciate it. My pleasure. Jacobsen: I have encountered several different approaches to this issue in the broader discussion. There are two main streams. One argues for a static definition, while the other supports a more fluid, ongoing conversation. When you think about antisemitism, what kind of language do you use to approach it, if at all? Guiora: I think one needs to be cautious about instinctively throwing down the flag of antisemitism. However, as I told you when we spoke a couple of days ago, I view this through the lens of being an Israeli, not necessarily as an American Jew. From the perspective of an Israeli, it has been nearly two years since October 7, 2023. As someone deeply involved in demonstrations, rallies, and efforts against the government, I am fervently—an understatement—opposed to the Netanyahu government. That does not make me anti-Israeli in any way. I firmly believe that criticism of this government, whether by Israelis or by non-Israelis, by Jews or non-Jews, is entirely legitimate. I belong to the camp that says legitimate criticism of Israel, when based on knowledge and understanding, is not antisemitic. Full stop. I have friends who, with reasonable minds though differing views, believe that all criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. I do not subscribe to that position. So, putting on my Israeli hat—well, I do not have much hair, but still—I see criticism of what is happening as necessary. The fact that hostages remain in captivity—the 49 hostages still being held—and the reality that we are engaged in a purposeless war in Gaza all compel me to be highly critical. As you know, I have spoken at rallies in Haifa and Jerusalem. I am also writing a book about Netanyahu’s enablers, naming them by name. None of this makes me antisemitic. So, the definitional issue is this: do we say that any criticism of Israel is automatically antisemitic? I do not think so. Is there antisemitism in some of the criticism? Indeed, remarkably, it is not grounded in knowledge or understanding. However, as a lawyer, definitions are crucial. Words must be narrowly defined, specifically defined, and carefully applied. So I am very cautious about labelling, “Oh, he is antisemitic, she is antisemitic.” Is there antisemitism? Of course there is. An attack on a synagogue is antisemitic. The attack in Chile, which I saw reported the other day, was antisemitic—attacks on synagogues, attacks on Jews. You are in Canada: the Jewish man who was attacked in front of his children in Montreal—that is antisemitism. I saw something similar in Paris. However, there are also situations involving Israelis. I think it was in Barcelona: an Israeli family was sitting in a restaurant, speaking Hebrew. The owner approached them and asked, “Are you speaking Hebrew?” They said yes. He told them, “Leave now.” Is that antisemitic, or is that anti-Israel? I do not know. Where does Zionism, or anti-Zionism, fit into this analysis? I define myself as a Zionist who believes in the state of Israel. Obviously, I served in the IDF, and I absolutely believe in the legitimacy of the state of Israel. I assume—though, as the first three letters of the word remind us, assumption can be risky—that anti-Zionism is the denial of Israel’s right to exist. I know that position is out there. Notwithstanding the UN resolution many decades back, I take anti-Zionism to mean the denial of Israel’s legitimacy. I also know there are Jews who are anti-Zionist. My assumption—and I say this cautiously—is that this position denies Israel’s right to exist. For me, is that antisemitic? Or is that anti-Israel? It lies somewhere between those categories. I do not always know what that means. There is also a revisionist history that contributes to this. However, the state of Israel exists, and it is not going anywhere. To deny its existence, for me, is far off the beaten path. I do not understand where that comes from. Much prejudice toward Jewish people seems to depend on a prior definition—what is a Jewish person? Now, you pointed out something intriguing: the history of the Israeli Supreme Court, which dates back many decades—if I recall correctly, to the early 1970s or early 1980s. The question in that case was: What is a Jew? What was the impetus for the case? What was the deliberation process? Moreover, what was the outcome? I admit I do not know enough about the case itself. However, I can tell you that, traditionally, there has never been much question about what defines a Jew. According to the Torah, a Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish. Unlike in Islam, where the father’s faith determines identity, in Judaism, it is the mother’s faith that is considered significant. There has been a lengthy discussion of what it means to be a Jew. Years ago, it was in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. There was an article debating whether one primarily identifies as an Israeli or as a Jew. That is a fascinating question. If I have to choose between the two, I define myself as an Israeli. I also think, in the context of historical antisemitism, that reasonable minds may disagree. However, there is a strong school of thought that says Christianity historically placed blame on Jews as the “Christ killers.” In 1965, Pope Paul VI issued Nostra Aetate, a declaration rejecting that charge and affirming that Jews collectively were not responsible for the death of Jesus—it was the Romans. However, for nearly 2,000 years, the accusation of Jews as Christ killers hung over us. In the Middle Ages, antisemitism manifested in other forms: Jews were portrayed as bloodsuckers, accused of ritual murder, or seen as running the banks—stereotypes tied to families like the Rothschilds. The “Christ killer” accusation was perhaps the most important element of this long history of antisemitism. Fast forward to Hitler: Was Hitler antisemitic? Of course—virulently antisemitic. There was no state of Israel at the time, so the Holocaust was entirely about Jews. The Holocaust is the seminal event in the history of antisemitism, unhinged as unhinged can be. In Israel today, we have both Orthodox (including Hasidic) Jews and secular Jews. The conflict between secular and Orthodox Jews is very real. Many in the Orthodox community, by rabbinical order, refuse to serve in the IDF. For secular Israelis like me, and for those of us whose children serve in the IDF, this refusal is outrageous. There are no words for it. To give an example: there is a cartoon showing soldiers marching in one direction to the draft while Orthodox Jews head the opposite way, travelling to Ukraine to pray instead of serving. This captures the sense of division. So the question arises: Does my criticism of Orthodox Jews for refusing military service make me antisemitic? I do not believe so. However, among secular Israelis, there is genuine hatred toward the Orthodox for this reason. I can point to friends who say openly, “We hate the Orthodox.” Moreover, when they say hate, they mean hate. On the other hand, just three weeks ago, extremist Orthodox groups declared “war on the state of Israel.” They even posted banners to that effect. They then held a violent demonstration two weeks ago. Frankly, I was sorry the police did not crack down harder. So it is not very easy. Jacobsen: It is the Pope’s “relationship status.” It is not very easy. I think that sentiment applies here as well. Now, what about something I have not explored as much in conversation—the issue of intra-Jewish, or inter-subethnic, tensions: Ashkenazim versus Sephardim versus Mizrahim, and so on? Today, these often surface as jokes. People have told me such jokes, though the terminology can be strong. Guiora: Jokes, of course, are often rooted in reality. If someone harbours hatred within the broader Jewish community, does that count as antisemitism? First, I do not think antisemites in the broader world distinguish between Sephardic Jews, Russian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, or Ashkenazi Jews. To them, a Jew is a Jew. That is a different question from what you are asking. Historically, when the state of Israel was founded, it was led mainly by Ashkenazi Jews from Europe, including Ben-Gurion and others. When Jews from Middle Eastern countries, particularly Sephardic Jews, came in the 1950s—many from Morocco—it is well documented that they felt discriminated against by the Ashkenazi establishment. That reality was very much present at the time. Where are we now, in 2025? The situation is no longer what it once was. Intermarriage has played a role in bridging divisions, and the IDF serves as a great melting pot. In the army, Jews from Yemen, Ethiopia, the broader Middle East, including Sephardim and Ashkenazim, as well as Russians, all serve together. The shared experience of service brings people together. That is not to deny that discrimination existed in the past. I remember when Ehud Barak, either running for prime minister or already serving, publicly apologized to Sephardic Jews for the discrimination they experienced in the 1950s. You cannot argue with people’s lived perceptions; if they felt discriminated against, that was real for them. However, by 2025, I do not think this will remain a significant issue. Some may still use it—perhaps politicians for their own expediency—but in the broader sense, within the context of antisemitism, distinctions between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, and other Jewish groups are, in my view, a non-issue. Jacobsen: It is politically incorrect for many people to express certain prejudices openly. However, during periods of rising antisemitism, people will seize upon whatever current issue exists and use it as a justification to air their preexisting biases—under the pretext of the present controversy. Guiora: I understand that. As I have mentioned, I give numerous talks. On occasion, I have faced demonstrations, had police protection, or even been spat on while inside a car. I never felt that was antisemitism. I felt they were attacking me as an Israeli, full stop. After my Holocaust book came out in 2017, I received death threats. Those threats were posted on neo-Nazi platforms—one styled after Der Stürmer—and in other places. In my opinion, those threats were antisemitic. They included terrible things: “Hang your favourite Jew,” or “Who wants to see Amos’s bloody scalp?” That was clearly antisemitism. By contrast, when I have faced demonstrations against me, I felt those were anti-Israel, not antisemitic. Once, I was invited as a keynote speaker at a major conference on antisemitism. It was a great honour. There were so many police that they even escorted me to the men’s room. I told them, “Fellas, I can take care of myself. I do not need police with me in the bathroom.” Was the heavy security due to fear of protesters? Was that fear about antisemitism or anti-Israel sentiment? Given the context of the conference, I assume antisemitism. However, in other talks, when people shouted things about Israel, I considered that anti-Israel, not antisemitic. I believe there is a clear distinction between the two. Jacobsen: Do you think antisemitism is rising? Guiora: According to groups like the ADL and AJC, who track statistics in the U.S. and Europe, the answer is yes. However, distinguishing whether incidents are anti-Israel or antisemitic is not always straightforward. For example, recently in New York with my wife, we made a conscious choice not to speak Hebrew in the streets. Is that fear of anti-Israel reaction or fear of antisemitism? I do not know. We are very conscious of these things. When I travel, I refrain from wearing anything that identifies me as Israeli. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has issued strong recommendations—almost guidelines—not to speak Hebrew in public, not to wear swag with Hebrew writing or Israeli symbols. I have a religious Israeli friend who wears a kippah. He planned to travel to Europe with friends, all of whom also wear kippot. However, the security concern was significant. Simply being visibly Jewish today, in certain places, carries real risk. My friend said he would only travel with his group if they did not wear kippot in Europe. One of his friends replied, “I will not take my kippah off in Europe.” My friend responded, “Then I cannot go with you.” So is that fear of anti-Israel sentiment or fear of antisemitism? Yes—it is both. Jacobsen: Do you think that from an outside perspective, there is really no distinction being made between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews? If someone hates Jewish people, they hate Jewish people. When a person is yelling in the street, “Fuck the Jews” or whatever, they are not distinguishing between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. I do not think they even know the difference. Alternatively, if they do, it is irrelevant. Jacobsen: Has there been any legal progress since that 1970s case? Guiora: To my understanding, no. The question remains open. According to Jewish law, a Jew is defined as someone born to a Jewish mother. That has raised complicated questions regarding conversion. For instance, who conducted the conversion? Was it an Orthodox rabbi or a Reform rabbi? To the best of my knowledge, the State of Israel—through the Chief Rabbinate—does not recognize conversions conducted by Reform rabbis. That remains a live issue. From my perspective, anyone who sincerely wants to convert to Judaism should be welcomed. However, the Rabbinate, dominated by Orthodox Judaism, does not recognize non-Orthodox conversions. Politically, the government often accommodates this because it needs Orthodox parties for coalition-building. That is simply the reality. It reminds me of something: years ago in Ireland, there was a debate about priests offering televised blessings for those unable to attend services. I joked—if you record it and replay it throughout the day, do you receive perpetual indulgences? I will leave that question to you. Jacobsen: What about outside Israel, in census data? How are people defining Jewish identity around the world? Guiora: Good question. Here in Utah, as I understand it, when you ask leaders of the Jewish community how many Jews live here, the standard response is about 5,000. It is a round number that gets repeated because there is no precise count. That is how the community itself tends to present it. If someone’s father is Jewish but the mother is not, then in Israel, they would not be identified as Jewish. For the sake of community purposes elsewhere, they might be accepted as Jews—but not in Israel. Today, in much of the West, such individuals would indeed be considered Jewish. However, in Israel, the Orthodox Rabbinate controls these questions, and their position is clear: Jewish identity follows the mother. Outside Israel, particularly in Reform communities, there is much greater tolerance. If someone wants to decide that they are a Jew, the response is often, Zay gezunt—so be it. My view is similar: if somebody wants to define themselves as a Jew, God bless them. Seriously. Jacobsen: What circumstances have you felt involved in genuine, virulent forms of antisemitism directed at you, not just anti-Israel sentiment? Guiora: I grew up in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I did not experience antisemitism in my childhood. Perhaps once, at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio, someone said something foolish. In law school at Case Western—no, not at all. Working in Washington, D.C.—again, not at all. Serving in the IDF for 20 years—none. Now, having been back in the United States for 20 years, the only antisemitism I have personally experienced was tied to the Holocaust book I published. That brought death threats. I received one typed letter, postmarked Cleveland, Ohio. (You probably do not even know what a typewriter is—you are too young. Jacobsen: They invented typewriters at about the same time they invented dirt. Guiora: Anyway, the letter said: Amos— not “Dear Amos,” just “Amos.” The writer had read my book or read about me and wrote, “The next Holocaust is sure to happen, and you will be one of the first victims.” That is antisemitism. There were also comments online, like: Raise your hand if you want to see Amos’s bloody scalp. What is that? Jacobsen: Unless this person knew of some obscure historical practice about scalping Jews, it is simply violent antisemitic language directed at me personally. Guiora: Once, at three o’clock in the morning, I woke up to a whole series of threats. By seven or eight in the morning, they began posting my home address. That is serious. With the Holocaust letter, when my address was made public, we immediately reached out to the police. I understand that someone also contacted the FBI, which was the right thing to do. The moment you publish someone’s home address, that crosses a dangerous line. What is Holocaust denial? Let me tell you a story. In 2005 or 2006, I was invited to debate the legality of what some call the “fence” and others call the “barrier” between Israel and the West Bank. I was to debate a professor of law. On my way to the debate, one of my research assistants called me and said, “Professor Guiora, have you read what he writes?” I told her I had not. She said, “He is a Holocaust minimizer.” I asked, “What the hell is that?” She explained: “He acknowledges that the Holocaust happened—thank you—but he says it was two million victims, not six million.” So I arrive at the debate. We debate the barrier, not the Holocaust. However, as the only child of two Holocaust survivors, whose grandparents were murdered in the Holocaust, I refused to shake his hand afterward—no reason to. Later, I received a scathing letter from the university provost accusing me of violating principles of academic dignity and integrity. I considered my options: (1) respond politely, (2) write, “Dear Mr. Provost, go fuck yourself,” or (3) delete the email. After thinking it through—tick, tick, tick—I deleted it. A couple of years later, I ran into the same professor, the Holocaust minimizer, at a conference. He greeted me warmly: “Amos, it is great to see you!” He extended his hand. I looked at it and refused again. No way I would shake that hand. Now, is he antisemitic? Is he an idiot? Is he anti-Israel? What is that? Jacobsen: What it brings to mind is the deeper concept of intersubjective agreement—how we define ourselves, how we define our history, how we define offence, and then how we define each other in relation to all those things. It is a sliding scale across all of them. Guiora: Exactly. When the death threats came in after articles about my book, I had to confront my late mother with this reality. She had no idea Holocaust denial even existed. Living in Israel, it was outside her frame of reference. I remember the painful conversation: not only explaining that people deny the Holocaust, but that some of those same people wanted to kill her son. She could not grasp it. My mother could not wrap her mind around Holocaust denial. That is no trivial matter. By the way, my mother did not define herself as a Holocaust survivor—she defined herself as a Holocaust winner. She defeated the Holocaust. For her, denial was incomprehensible. I remember sitting with her in her apartment in Jerusalem. This is how my mom spoke: “Are you fucking kidding me?” Moreover, I said, “No, Mom, I am serious.” She could not, would not, wrap her mind around it. Jacobsen: What is Holocaust denial? At its core, it says: It did not happen. Holocaust minimization says: Yes, it happened, but the scale was smaller—two million, not six million. That is just another form of denialism, a style of revisionism. On a conceptual spectrum, you could call one pole Holocaust acceptance and the other pole Holocaust denial. In between lies minimization. So yes, it is denial, just by another name. Guiora: As you know, I am frequently interviewed and meet with numerous people. There are only two categories of people with whom I absolutely refuse to interact. One: neo-Nazis. Two: Holocaust deniers. With them, there is nothing to discuss. They are utterly anathema to me. I engage with a wide range of people—I have even dealt with Hamas. But neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers? No way. Jacobsen: Does your being ex-IDF complicate matters, in terms of how people conflate Israeli and Jewish identity—directing hatred at Jews through their opposition to Israel? Guiora: That is a fascinating question. Are the mistakes in Gaza being used as justification for antisemitism? That is the issue. Is it antisemitism to call Israel’s actions “genocide”? Some of my American Jewish friends would say yes—instinctively. However, I also have Israeli friends who are deeply, deeply concerned about what the IDF is doing in Gaza. They are not antisemitic. They are Israelis criticizing their own government. Would some of them say that international criticism of Israel is antisemitic? Perhaps. I have friends who believe that. However, for me, criticism of Israel—especially informed, substantive criticism—is not the same as antisemitism. The mainstream does not think about Gaza through the lens of antisemitism. They think about it through the lens of: What is Israel doing in Gaza? That is how Israelis themselves frame it. Jacobsen: Even if it has not been settled in Israeli courts for over fifty years, are there other courts that have a standard, working definition—not widely accepted, but at least functional? Of antisemitism? Or of “Jew”? Guiora: [Laughing] Jesus, I hope the rest of the world has better things to do than to ask, What is a Jew? Please. When this Gaza war ends, the ICC (International Criminal Court) or the ICJ (International Court of Justice) may have to decide what to do with Netanyahu and others. My expectation is: nothing. However, I do not view that through the lens of antisemitism. I view it through the lens of international law. Are alleged war crimes being investigated or not? That is the question. Still, I have no doubt some frame it as antisemitism. For example, some of my friends argue that any potential arrest warrants against Netanyahu or former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant are predicated on antisemitism. Their reasoning is: “There are no arrest warrants against Hamas. There are no arrest warrants against Hezbollah. There are no arrest warrants against others. Therefore, if the only arrest warrants are directed at Israelis, it must be antisemitism.” I am aware of that argument. However, realistically, no one is going to arrest “Bibi” Netanyahu. No one is going to arrest Yoav Gallant. Any such warrant would be performative. Is it performative because of antisemitism? Some people absolutely say yes, especially when looking at the long list of others who have committed atrocities. There is an ICC arrest warrant against Putin for war crimes related to Ukraine. There have also been proceedings against leaders like Duterte at the International Criminal Court, though not Assad of Syria, despite his horrific record. So yes, there is a legitimate debate about selective justice. However, whether that stems from antisemitism is contested. Jacobsen: On March 17, 2023, following its investigation, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. Guiora: Putin has not been arrested—unless I somehow missed CNN today—and he will not be arrested. And neither will Netanyahu. These warrants are performative. Why do I say that? Because, frankly, Putin does not even know the thing exists, and if he does, he does not care. I have had people ask me, “Is Netanyahu worried about being arrested?” Jesus Christ—people do not understand Netanyahu at all. The only things he cares about are Israel and the United States. Europe, for him, is utterly irrelevant. He uses Macron in France for his own domestic political advantage. If Macron does not understand that, then Macron needs a lesson from Netanyahu, unless Macron himself is also playing a double game for his domestic politics in France, perhaps with elections coming up. Jacobsen: Years ago, Bill Maher interviewed Netanyahu—this must be over a decade ago. They discussed what is now commonly referred to as Christian nationalism. Certain American evangelicals want events in Israel to unfold in a particular way because they believe it will trigger the Second Coming of Jesus. It is apocalyptic theology. It instrumentalizes Jewish people for someone else’s religious narrative. Guiora: Every time Israel is attacked—or when a European leader declares support for a Palestinian state—Netanyahu reframes that criticism as antisemitism. He plays it directly to his political base in Israel. It is a tactic. Does Macron realize that when he makes statements about a Palestinian state, it gives Netanyahu another rallying point at home? Perhaps Macron is aware of it and is utilizing it for his own base in France. Maybe not. Jacobsen: That reminds me of Bill Maher’s point in that interview. Netanyahu, when the second coming arose. He joked, “We will have that conversation when it happens.” It was a sharp line. It connects to something much older. There is a saying often attributed to Roman or Greek thinkers: The wise consider religion false, the ordinary people consider it true, and the rulers consider it useful. Guiora: Marx later echoed it with his line, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” The point is the same: religion—and by extension, Israel in this context—is being used instrumentally. Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Amos. — Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations. *** If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today. Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. — Photo by Taylor Brandon on Unsplash The post Amos N. Guiora on Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and the Politics of Criticism appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Protesters splashed red paint on performer David D’Or during a concert in Warsaw A group of pro-Palestine activists attacked Israeli singer David D’Or during a concert in Warsaw on Sunday, dousing him with red paint. The incident began when at least two activists disrupted D’Or’s performance, which featured classical songs and sung prayers with orchestral accompaniment. Footage from the scene shows one individual throwing paint at the singer, smearing D’Or and several musicians in the orchestra. As the activist was being tackled by several concertgoers and security guards, a woman carrying a Palestinian flag attempted to scale the stage. However, she was promptly pulled down, and the group was escorted out of the auditorium following a brief scuffle, footage shows. מפגינה פרו-פלסטינית התיזה צבע אדום על דוד ד'אור בהופעתו בוורשה pic.twitter.com/A56pjMW4BV — David Cohen (@David_Cohen10) September 1, 2025 The Polish authorities remained silent on the incident, and it was not immediately clear whether the activists faced any legal consequences for their actions. The singer posted footage of the incident on his Instagram page after the concert, stating that it brought him “back to the horrors of the October 7” Hamas attack. “In the middle of the prayer, Our Father, our King, when I pray for a good year and peace in the world, I closed my eyes, when suddenly I felt a splash on my face, I opened my eyes to see a strong red color, resembling blood,” D’Or said, claiming that the incident left the orchestra members and the audience shaken. The October 7 surprise attack on southern Israel mounted by the Palestinian militant group left at least 1,200 people dead and prompted Israel’s ongoing military offensive in Gaza. The operation in the Palestinian enclave has inflicted immense material damage and left more than 62,000 dead, according to local health authorities. View the full article

Would you still love yourself if you were fired tomorrow, and there was nothing impressive to say when people asked, “So what are you doing now?” Do you think you’d love yourself if someone you swore was different ghosted you after three months? Would you still love yourself if you lived with your parents because rent was impossible? I’m 25, which is meant to feel like freedom, like possibility, like “your best years.” But at the moment, it seems like failed adulthood. I read about other people’s lives and let the weight of comparison press me down. Everyone else is “building something.” I feel like I’m just trying not to fall apart. Here’s the ugly thing: sometimes I don’t like myself at all. I play drunk texts back in my head, missed deadlines, the nights I said yes when I wanted to say no. I also replay his expression when he realized I was more difficult than he expected. And when that’s happening, self-love seems like the cheesiest, emptiest idea on the planet. But then there are the little rebellions: the mornings I get myself out of bed when what I crave is oblivion; the nights I eat ramen for the fifth time — but at least I eat; the afternoons I give up pretending and confess to a friend, “I am at a loss.” That isn’t glamorous, but maybe that’s what real self-love looks like — sticking with myself when there’s no pride in bragging. “Your twenties are for finding yourself,” or so everyone tells you. But what they don’t tell you is how much like losing yourself it feels in the first place: the loss of the old versions of you that can’t survive this chapter, unlearning the myths you were raised on, stopping the belief that you will be loved only if you are perfect. So, how do you love yourself when your life is falling apart? You’re choosing not to leave yourself in the ruin. You choose to stay, even when it feels pathetic to stay. You look at the version of you that messed up, that has zero money and no one to talk to, and no plan for the next five years — and you say, “I’m not going to abandon you.” Because if I can’t love myself when I’m broken open and bleeding, then any love I give myself later will be conditional. And I’m done with conditional. — This post was previously published on medium.com. Love relationships? We promise to have a good one with your inbox. Subcribe to get 3x weekly dating and relationship advice. Did you know? We have 8 publications on Medium. Join us there! Hello, Love (relationships) Change Becomes You (Advice) A Parent is Born (Parenting) Equality Includes You (Social Justice) Greener Together (Environment) Shelter Me (Wellness) Modern Identities (Gender, etc.) Co-Existence (World) *** – Photo credit: Giulia Bertelli on Unsplash The post How to Love Yourself When Life Feels Like It’s Falling Apart appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

An ex-Danish MP has been sentenced to four months in prison for possessing thousands of abuse files A former minister in the Danish parliament has been sentenced to four months in prison for possession of child pornography, multiple media outlets reported on Monday. Henrik Sass Larsen, who was once a senior member of the Social Democrats and served as trade minister, admitted to having more than 6,000 photographs and 2,000 videos of child sexual abuse on his computer. He denied the charges, however, insisting the files were connected to his search for evidence of his own childhood abuse. The explanation was rejected by a unanimous jury in the Copenhagen City Court, which delivered its verdict on Monday. Police uncovered the material during searches of his electronic devices in 2023 and 2024. The case, which became public in March 2024, cost him his membership in the ruling Social Democratic Party. In court, the 59-year-old, who spent part of his childhood in foster care before being adopted, said he had received a video link in 2018 that appeared to show him being abused as a toddler. This and another file vanished after viewing, he told the judges, adding that he searched online to trace the perpetrators and regretted not going to police. Prosecutor Maria Cingari said she was “satisfied” with the verdict, but called it sad that someone who had managed to overcome a difficult start in life ended up in such circumstances. She stressed that nothing could justify possession of child pornography. The court acquitted Sass Larsen on a separate charge of owning a child sex doll, which he said had arrived as a free gift with an online purchase. His lawyer said an appeal is still being considered. Under Danish law, the defense has 14 days to file one. In Denmark, possession of materials depicting child abuse is punishable regardless of intent with a maximum penalty of two years in prison. The ruling has sparked both political and public backlash. Betina Kastbjerg, spokesperson for the Danish Democrats party, argued that the four-month sentence is too light, while demonstrators gathered outside the court called for tougher penalties. View the full article

. Here is a summary of the transcript from YouTube, slightly edited with AI. What’s Even More Important Than Chemistry We often go into our dating lives worried that if we say the wrong thing once, make too much of a situation, or create a fight, we’ll mess it all up. That anxious thought—“It’s over, I’ve ruined everything”—haunts many people. Today, we’re talking about what truly creates successful relationships. For each episode, we’ve been putting up polls on Instagram @theMatthewHussey. For this one, we asked: “Which behavior do you see in other people’s relationships that you believe makes them succeed?” The options were: same values, great chemistry, or being in each other’s league. What People Value Most The majority of people chose values. Chemistry may get a relationship off the ground, but values keep it strong in the long term. We then asked, “If you chose values, which shared values matter most?” The top answers were honesty, family, ambition, and money. The results: Honesty – 71% Family – 20% Ambition – 6% Money – 3% Clearly, honesty came out on top. People can compromise on family, ambition, and money, but honesty is harder to bend. Most failed relationships carry a thread of dishonesty—lies, cheating, betrayal, or withheld truths. The Gottman Institute’s Research on Successful Relationships John and Julie Gottman, renowned for their long-term studies of couples, highlight the importance of communication and responsiveness. They found that successful couples respond to their partner’s “bids for connection” 86% of the time. A bid can be something as simple as sharing a meme, asking for a hug, or suggesting lunch together. The more often we turn toward our partner in these moments, the stronger the bond. The Gottmans also emphasize “love mapping”—getting to know your partner’s internal world. Asking thoughtful questions like, “How do you feel about your new job?” or “What are you excited about this week?” deepens connection. Even simple questions like, “What do you need today?” can strengthen intimacy. Understanding Your Partner’s Communication Style Not everyone responds the same way to emotional questions. Some people are naturally verbal, while others shut down if pressed too hard. Creating the right environment matters—walking in the park, cooking together, or driving can make conversations feel less like interrogations. Questions should be adapted to personality. Instead of asking, “Are you anxious about work restructuring?” you might ask, “How’s the restructuring going?” or “What’s it been like for you?” Neutral questions create space without pressure. The 5:1 Ratio of Positive to Negative Interactions The Gottmans also found that happy couples maintain a ratio of five positive interactions for every one negative one. Positive interactions include shared laughter, kind gestures, appreciation, or simply spending time together. Even if arguments arise, frequent affection and small daily moments of care matter more than grand gestures. Repair after conflict is equally important. Couples that never argue often suppress their true feelings, leading to resentment. Healthy conflict, when followed by repair, strengthens relationships. Different Argument (and Relationship Repair) Styles Not everyone repairs conflict in the same way. Some people want to resolve an argument immediately, while others need space to process. If unspoken, these differences can create anxiety or mistrust. The key is communication: “When you ask for space, it makes me anxious. Could we agree that you’ll come back after an hour?” This way, both partners’ needs are respected. Repair doesn’t just mean solving the problem—it also requires showing affection, reassurance, and safety during the process. Playing by a Different Set of Rules Arguments can spiral when both sides focus on being “right.” But when one partner concedes a point or expresses empathy, tension softens. Even small gestures—a touch, a smile, a gentle word—can shift the emotional tone. Successful couples remember they’re not adversaries. They’re a team, and the goal is not to win the fight but to grow stronger together. Resentments often fuel toxic fights, especially when underlying feelings go unspoken. Being honest about unmet needs early prevents explosive arguments later. Respect and Influence One of the most underrated signs of a healthy relationship is allowing yourself to be influenced by your partner. Respecting their perspective, conceding when they have a better idea, and valuing their input all strengthen the bond. Research shows that when men resist influence from their partners, relationships are far more likely to fail. True strength lies not in control but in flexibility and mutual respect. A loving relationship thrives when both people influence and learn from each other. — This post was previously published on YouTube. Blog → https://www.howtogettheguy.com/blog/ Facebook → https://facebook.com/CoachMatthewHussey Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/thematthewh… Twitter → https://twitter.com/matthewhussey ▼ Connect with Stephen ▼ Youtube → https://bit.ly/StephenHusseyYoutube Instagram → http://bit.ly/StephenHusseyIG *** Does dating ever feel challenging, awkward or frustrating? Turn Your Dating Life into a WOW! with our new classes and live coaching. Click here for more info or to buy with special launch pricing! *** On Substack? Follow us there for more great dating and relationships content. — Photo credit: unsplash The post 7 Secrets of Successful Relationships (Proven by Experts!) appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Check out this Lego set from Wicked For Good Wicked was a smash hit. I first read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. The musical was mind blowing and took audiences on a mystical adventure. The first film was wonderful and really helped bring this story to colorful life. At San Diego Comic Con a number of Lego sets from Wicked For Good were shown and here is my thoughts on one of them. (c) Lego Group You can learn more about this set here: Step inside Elphaba’s magical woodland retreat. Hold the candle as she studies her map. Make plans with her and Fiyero round the fireplace and work out how to thwart The Wizard. Study the Grimmerie and escape from her enemies. Make friends with the rabbits, feed them a carrot and relax with nature in the beautiful woodland hideaway. (c) Lego Group This set truly does look stunning. There is a lot to see here, and many moments that bring a momentous scene from this sequel to life. The set includes many pieces and lots of places for the characters to explore. If you are excited about this movie then this is a set you will want to add to your collection. You can pre-order this Lego set here. (c) Lego Group This Elphaba’s Retreat Wicked Lego Set is now available. You can follow Lego on Facebook and Instagram. The post Take a Look at This Elphaba’s Retreat Lego Set appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

The EU has no “jurisdiction or competence” regarding any potential deployments, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius says German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has criticized European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over her recent remarks about a potential EU troop deployment to Ukraine. The bloc’s leadership has neither jurisdiction nor competence in such matters, while the deliberations should be kept private, Pistorius argued. Pistorius made the remarks while speaking to reporters during a visit to an arms manufacturer near Cologne on Monday. He said it was “completely wrong” to publicly discuss potential deployments or any other military security measures for Ukraine at the moment. “Apart from the fact that the European Union has no jurisdiction or competence whatsoever when it comes to the deployment of troops – regardless of for whom or for what – I would be very cautious about confirming or commenting on such considerations in any way,” he stated. Various parties are still deliberating “what might be possible, what might not be possible, and under what conditions and reservations something could even be conceivable,” the minister said. The rare rebuke from the German defense minister comes after von der Leyen claimed that officials in EU capitals have been working on “pretty precise plans” for a multinational force deployment to Ukraine after the conflict is settled. The plan is also backed by US President Donald Trump, she claimed. Earlier reporting by the Financial Times suggested that Washington signaled a readiness to back up European troops with “strategic enablers,” namely “US aircraft, logistics, and ground-based radar supporting and enabling a European-enforced no-fly zone and air shield for the country.” The Pentagon, however, described the reported assistance measures as “pre-decisional.” Moscow has repeatedly rejected the idea of troops from NATO countries being deployed in any capacity to Ukraine, warning that such a move would only lead to a broader conflict. This stance was reiterated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov late in August, when he said that security guarantees “must be subject to consensus” while any foreign military intervention was “absolutely unacceptable.” View the full article

Following each high-visible episode of gun violence in the United States, politicians and other community and national leaders spout their often-repeated worn-out platitudes and false claims regarding the actual causes of this lethal epidemic plaguing the country. Their words all-to-often result in the silencing of the root causes of the problem. “Sending my best wishes and prayers.” Of course, people of goodwill and compassion express this sentiment to people and communities suffering trauma and grief. This can help to begin the often-long healing process at a time of unfathomable tragedy by providing essential solace to survivors. It also gives those of us who feel powerless during these occasions at least a limited sense of standing with others. This expression, though, falls far short of a solution, which morphs into mere platitude when those in positions of power fail to work toward real solutions. “This is not the time to talk about politics.” After virtually every firearms-related slaughter, a common pattern has emerged: when advocates rightly raise issues of safety regulations, politicians retreat to their deflective tactic of reciting that “now is not the time.” Moments pass leading to the next political issue (for example, healthcare or storm disaster relief) pushing gun violence out of the headlines as action is not taken. Then the next high-visibility gun massacre blares out while politicians again claim that “now is not the time,” and the cycle repeats ad infinitum. Some of these leaders offer their prognosis regarding the cause of the latest incident. “Transgender people are to blame.” I wrote an editorial commentary about the recent mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church and school outside of Minneapolis, Minnesota killing two children, 8 and 10 years old, and injuring another 14 children and 4 adults. I listed several policy options for common sense for gun reforms that if taken collectively could severely reduce the carnage. On one of my social media platforms, a participant summarily rejected my reforms and, instead, asserted his assumptions behind the alleged shooter’s motivations: “No thank you,” he responded to my plan. “We do need to investigate why so many of these mass shooters identify as transgender and why they often select faith based institutions for their evil deeds.” This respondent and several others have seen reports that the alleged shooter identified as “transgender,” and they have emphasized this to weaponize identity as causation. In my attempt to decouple this man from his false conspiracies, I reported the finding from multiple reputable research sources, which all reported that the rate of mass shooters in the United States who identify as transgender is very low ranging from under 1% to only a very few cases. In fact, these sources found, instead, that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are perpetrated by cisgender males. The Violence Project, a nonpartisan research center, for example, found in its analysis of 200 mass shootings between 1999 and 2024, that only one was perpetrated by a transgender person. The executive director of the Gun Violence Archive, stated in 2024 that transgender suspects accounted for less than 0.11% of all mass shootings in the United States over the past decade. In their assessment of 173 mass attacks between 2016 and 2020, the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center found that 2% of perpetrators identified as transgender having been assigned female at birth but identifying as male at the time of the attacks. The vast majority of attackers (96%) were cisgender male. I brought these reports to the attention of the respondent on social media, at which point he dropped his assertion that a large percent of mass shooters were transgender. He then immediately turned his blame to the alleged perpetrator’s history of rampant antisemitism, and he gave me a stern warning: “I think you [should] take a second look Warren,” he wrote. “And no Jew in their right mind should endorse gun control. As a community, we need to be armed and ready to defend ourselves.” And here is the real problem! Once we present a valid research-based explanation to disprove their morally misguided and false explanations for the vast number of incidents of gun violence in the United States, they will either dismiss our research or they will immediately find another reason to justify their failure to go to the root causes for the horrific tragedies that hit our communities everyday of every year: easy access to firearms. “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Actually, people with guns kill people more often and at significantly higher rates than people who don’t have guns. Let’s take a comparative example. Before and up to 1996, Australia had relatively high rates of murder, but an incident at Port Arthur, Tasmania, April 28, 1996, was the proverbial straw that broke the poor camel’s back. On that date, a man opened fire on a group of tourists killing 35 and wounding another 23. The massacre was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history. Taking decisive action, newly-elected conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, negotiated a bipartisan deal between the national, state, and local governments in enacting comprehensive gun safety measures, which included a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and laws prohibiting private firearms sales, mandatory registration by owners of all weapons, and the requirement that all potential buyers of guns at the time of purchase give a “genuine reason” other than general or overarching self-defense without documentation of necessity. By 1996, polls showed overwhelming public support of approximately 90% for the new measures. And though firearms-related injuries and death have not totally come to an end, according to the Washington Post,homicides by firearms fell by 59% between 1995 and 2006 with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides, and a 65% reduction in gun-related suicides. Other studies found significant drops in robberies involving firearms, and contrary to fears by some, no increase in the overall number of home invasions. In the decade preceding the Port Arthur massacre, Australia recorded 11 mass shootings. No mass shootings have occurred for over two decades after the measures went into effect. “It’s a mental health issue.” When politicians assert a cause of gun violence, they invariably lay blame on people with mental illness. Some people talk of “delusional killers” or “mentally ill criminals” for the violence. While some leaders have called for a “national registry” of all persons diagnosed with mental illness, such a proposal has faced overwhelming criticism by mental health advocates over concerns about stigmatization and discrimination. Politicians are merely scapegoating an entire group of people rather than acknowledging the real causes. And while these same politicians call for increased support systems for people with mental health issues, this Republican-dominated Congress has acted to reduce support systems. On the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of people with emotional and mental health problems, in December 2016, the Obama administration released policy guidelines mandating that people receiving Social Security payments for severe mental illnesses and those found incapable of managing their finances undergo FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Checks if they request to purchase a weapon. Congress, however, overturned the policy, mostly on party lines. President Trump signed the measure into law one month after taking office during his first term, even though following every mass shooting, he refers to these instances as a “mental health problem” as he did again after 17 students and their teachers were killed in Parkland, Florida. In fact, however, reports show clearly that mass shootings by people with serious mental illness represent less than 1% of all yearly gun-related homicides. In addition, Columbia University’s Paul Applebaum and Duke’s Jeffrey Swanson found that “only 3-5% of violent acts are attributable to serious mental illness, and most do not involve guns.” “Fatherlessness in homes of boys and young men” Another explanation has gained attention on the political right: fatherless homes. Susan L. M. Goldberg of PJMedia, for example, argues: “Issue number one that no one in the mainstream media or government wants to acknowledge: fatherlessness. Specifically, the impact of fatherlessness on the boys who grew up to become school shooters.” Goldberg refers to Warren Farrell and John Grey’s book The Boy Crisis. She wrote: “Minimal or no father involvement, whether due to divorce, death, or imprisonment, is common to Adam Lanza, Elliott Rodgers, Dylan Roof and Stephen Paddock….In the case of 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, he was adopted at birth. His adoptive dad died when Nikolas was much younger, and doubtless the challenges of this fatherlessness was compounded by the death of his adoptive mom three and a half months ago.” By implication, the right is implying that women-headed households are inferior to those that are male-headed, and, ironically, that a family headed by two fathers in partnership is the best – though they have heartedly disputed this. Hypermasculinity Combined with Widescale Availability of Firearms In the over 50,000 shooting incidents in the United States, including approximately 372 categorized as “mass shootings” of four or more victims, men, mostly cisgender white men committed the overwhelming majority. And murder is primarily a male act in 90% of the cases when the gender of the perpetrator is known. In mass shootings, 98%+ are enacted by males. But regulations on firearms challenge the promises of a patriarchal system based on notions of hyper-masculinity with the elements taken to the extreme of control, domination over others and the environment, competitiveness, autonomy, rugged individualism, strength, toughness, forcefulness, and decisiveness, and, of course, never having to ask for help or assistance. Concepts of cooperation and community responsibility are pushed to the sidelines or often discarded. This connected to the easy legal access to firearms presents a recipe for disaster playing itself out so many times in the United States that it has become routine. Why do politicians and many residents of the U.S. continue to deny, deflect, diffuse, dispose, and dispense with raising issues revolving around the massive and virtually unrestricted availability of firearms, some reaching military-grade capability, as the prime reason for the epidemic of gun violence in the United States? But to paraphrase the great political strategist James Carvill: “It’s the guns stupid!” — Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. Photo credit: iStock The post Gun Rights Advocates Attempt to Silence the Causes of Gun Violence appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

The victory over Japan remains one of the most overlooked yet decisive chapters of the war On September 3, China will celebrate Victory Day – the anniversary of Japan’s capitulation in 1945. This year marks the 80th anniversary of that historic moment. The country is commemorating the milestone with a series of events, culminating in President Xi Jinping’s speech at Tiananmen Square, followed by a military parade in the heart of Beijing. For China, the Second World War holds as much significance as it does for Europe or Russia. Yet in the West, the Asian battlefield is poorly understood and often overlooked. While everyone knows about Pearl Harbor, the Normandy landings, the Battle of Stalingrad, Auschwitz, or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, far fewer have heard of the Mukden incident, the Marco Polo Bridge incident, the Nanjing Massacre, or Unit 731. And yet it was the Chinese people who paid one of the heaviest prices of the war. Just as the world has rightly learned about the horrors of the Holocaust, it must also confront the reality of Japan’s war crimes – and how, after 1945, the United States and its allies shielded many Japanese perpetrators, even exploiting the results of their atrocities for Cold War objectives. The Second World War exists in multiple national narratives. Europeans date the war’s outbreak to September 1, 1939, with Hitler’s invasion of Poland. For the Soviet Union, the Great Patriotic War began on June 22, 1941, with Nazi Germany’s massive assault. For the US, the war only truly started with Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941. Yet these narratives together form a larger picture of aggressors and victims, crimes and just struggles. In recent years, however, this collective memory has faced systematic attempts at reinterpretation, aimed at relativizing the crimes of Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, and their allies. In this revisionist history, the Soviet Union is portrayed as an aggressor, the liberation of Europe by the Red Army is reframed as occupation, while the decisive role in defeating the Axis is attributed primarily to the US and Britain. Rooted in a Eurocentric reading of history, this narrative marginalizes the stories of others. To counter such historical revisionism and nihilism, a truly global perspective on our shared past is essential. For China, the war started on September 18, 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria and created the puppet state of Manchukuo. This marked the beginning of the “War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” Despite being economically, technologically, and militarily weaker, China resisted Japan for over 14 years. The Communist Party of China took the lead in confronting the invaders, declaring war on Japan as early as April 1932, in contrast to Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang government, which leaned toward appeasement and often treated the communists as a greater threat than the Japanese occupiers. By late 1936, the communists and the Kuomintang had agreed to form a “United Front,” mobilizing nationwide resistance. This became crucial after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of July 7, 1937, which triggered a full-scale Japanese invasion. The brutal Nanjing Massacre followed, during which Japanese forces slaughtered at least 300,000 civilians and prisoners of war in just six weeks. Japan’s expansion was driven by a racist ideology of superiority and the ambition to dominate all of Asia – strikingly similar to Hitler’s quest for Lebensraum and a European empire. After Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, Mao Zedong called for an international united front against fascism, a strategy that soon bore fruit. In January 1942, China joined Britain, the US, and the Soviet Union in signing the Declaration of the United Nations, soon endorsed by 22 other countries. This laid the foundation for coordinated global action against the Axis powers. China became a vital contributor: its battlefield tied down much of Japan’s military capacity, preventing Tokyo from invading the USSR, India, or Australia. Chinese forces are estimated to have killed over 1.5 million Japanese soldiers, while nearly 1.3 million surrendered to China after Japan’s capitulation. From 1931 to 1945, China destroyed more than two-thirds of Japan’s ground forces. But the price was staggering: more than 35 million Chinese dead – exceeding the Soviet Union’s 27 million, and dwarfing US losses of around 500,000. The scale of Japanese war crimes in China and across Asia is comparable to the Holocaust – yet far less acknowledged in the West. The Nanjing Massacre remains one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century. At the same time, Japan’s Unit 731 carried out horrific biological and chemical warfare experiments on tens of thousands of prisoners, including civilians. Victims were vivisected without anesthesia, deliberately infected with plague and cholera, or used for frostbite and weapons testing. The war did not end in 1945 with complete justice. In Europe, many German scientists and officers who had served the Nazi regime were quietly absorbed into Western structures. Under Operation Paperclip, hundreds of Nazi engineers and doctors, some implicated in war crimes, were brought to the US to work on rocketry, medicine, and intelligence. Their expertise was valued more than the lives destroyed by their experiments and ideology. In Asia, a similar pattern emerged. Leaders of Japan’s Unit 731, responsible for some of the most gruesome human experiments in history, were granted immunity by the US in exchange for their research data, which Washington considered useful for biological weapons development. The atrocities committed against Chinese, Korean, and Soviet prisoners were buried under Cold War secrecy, while war criminals went on to live freely, some even prospering in postwar Japan. These choices reveal a troubling double standard: while Germany and Japan were defeated militarily, their crimes were selectively forgotten when they became convenient allies against the Soviet Union and, later, China. This history carries a clear warning for the present. Just as Cold War politics led the West to cover up and even profit from fascist crimes, today’s elites in Washington, London, and Brussels are engaged in rewriting history to serve new confrontations. By downplaying the sacrifices of China and the Soviet Union and magnifying their own role, they prepare Western societies for a new round of hostility. Historical memory becomes a battlefield in itself, where uncomfortable truths are erased, and narratives are crafted to justify military build-ups and geopolitical confrontation. Unlike Western liberal elites, who have provoked new conflicts such as the war in Ukraine and revived militarism while attempting to rewrite history, China has taken a different path. It promotes peace, favors diplomacy over confrontation, and seeks to build international cooperation instead of division. One way it does so is by cultivating shared historical memory of the “World Anti-Fascist War,” as China refers to World War II. This year, Xi Jinping’s participation in Moscow’s Victory Day celebrations, Vladimir Putin’s planned presence in Beijing this September, and the joint Sino-Russian statement of May 8 all underscore that China and the Soviet Union bore the greatest sacrifices in defeating fascism and militarism. Both warned against revising the memory and outcomes of the war and reaffirmed their commitment to the UN-based international system. There was a time when even Western leaders acknowledged these facts. In April 1942, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated: “We remember that the Chinese people were the first to stand up and fight against the aggressors in this war; and in the future a still unconquerable China will play its proper role in maintaining peace and prosperity, not only in eastern Asia but in the whole world.” His words now sound prophetic. China does not commemorate its victory only to honor the past. It does so to remind the world that peace is never guaranteed – and that history must not be rewritten to serve temporary political interests. View the full article

The victory over Japan remains one of the most overlooked yet decisive chapters of the war On September 3, China will celebrate Victory Day – the anniversary of Japan’s capitulation in 1945. This year marks the 80th anniversary of that historic moment. The country is commemorating the milestone with a series of events, culminating in President Xi Jinping’s speech at Tiananmen Square, followed by a military parade in the heart of Beijing. For China, the Second World War holds as much significance as it does for Europe or Russia. Yet in the West, the Asian battlefield is poorly understood and often overlooked. While everyone knows about Pearl Harbor, the Normandy landings, the Battle of Stalingrad, Auschwitz, or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, far fewer have heard of the Mukden incident, the Marco Polo Bridge incident, the Nanjing Massacre, or Unit 731. And yet it was the Chinese people who paid one of the heaviest prices of the war. Just as the world has rightly learned about the horrors of the Holocaust, it must also confront the reality of Japan’s war crimes – and how, after 1945, the United States and its allies shielded many Japanese perpetrators, even exploiting the results of their atrocities for Cold War objectives. The Second World War exists in multiple national narratives. Europeans date the war’s outbreak to September 1, 1939, with Hitler’s invasion of Poland. For the Soviet Union, the Great Patriotic War began on June 22, 1941, with Nazi Germany’s massive assault. For the US, the war only truly started with Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941. Yet these narratives together form a larger picture of aggressors and victims, crimes and just struggles. In recent years, however, this collective memory has faced systematic attempts at reinterpretation, aimed at relativizing the crimes of Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, and their allies. In this revisionist history, the Soviet Union is portrayed as an aggressor, the liberation of Europe by the Red Army is reframed as occupation, while the decisive role in defeating the Axis is attributed primarily to the US and Britain. Rooted in a Eurocentric reading of history, this narrative marginalizes the stories of others. To counter such historical revisionism and nihilism, a truly global perspective on our shared past is essential. Read more Russia and China ‘united in our vision’ – Putin For China, the war started on September 18, 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria and created the puppet state of Manchukuo. This marked the beginning of the “War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” Despite being economically, technologically, and militarily weaker, China resisted Japan for over 14 years. The Communist Party of China took the lead in confronting the invaders, declaring war on Japan as early as April 1932, in contrast to Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang government, which leaned toward appeasement and often treated the communists as a greater threat than the Japanese occupiers. By late 1936, the communists and the Kuomintang had agreed to form a “United Front,” mobilizing nationwide resistance. This became crucial after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of July 7, 1937, which triggered a full-scale Japanese invasion. The brutal Nanjing Massacre followed, during which Japanese forces slaughtered at least 300,000 civilians and prisoners of war in just six weeks. Japan’s expansion was driven by a racist ideology of superiority and the ambition to dominate all of Asia – strikingly similar to Hitler’s quest for Lebensraum and a European empire. After Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, Mao Zedong called for an international united front against fascism, a strategy that soon bore fruit. In January 1942, China joined Britain, the US, and the Soviet Union in signing the Declaration of the United Nations, soon endorsed by 22 other countries. This laid the foundation for coordinated global action against the Axis powers. China became a vital contributor: its battlefield tied down much of Japan’s military capacity, preventing Tokyo from invading the USSR, India, or Australia. Chinese forces are estimated to have killed over 1.5 million Japanese soldiers, while nearly 1.3 million surrendered to China after Japan’s capitulation. From 1931 to 1945, China destroyed more than two-thirds of Japan’s ground forces. But the price was staggering: more than 35 million Chinese dead – exceeding the Soviet Union’s 27 million, and dwarfing US losses of around 500,000. Read more Kim Jong-un to join Putin at China’s Victory Day celebrations – Beijing The scale of Japanese war crimes in China and across Asia is comparable to the Holocaust – yet far less acknowledged in the West. The Nanjing Massacre remains one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century. At the same time, Japan’s Unit 731 carried out horrific biological and chemical warfare experiments on tens of thousands of prisoners, including civilians. Victims were vivisected without anesthesia, deliberately infected with plague and cholera, or used for frostbite and weapons testing. The war did not end in 1945 with complete justice. In Europe, many German scientists and officers who had served the Nazi regime were quietly absorbed into Western structures. Under Operation Paperclip, hundreds of Nazi engineers and doctors, some implicated in war crimes, were brought to the US to work on rocketry, medicine, and intelligence. Their expertise was valued more than the lives destroyed by their experiments and ideology. In Asia, a similar pattern emerged. Leaders of Japan’s Unit 731, responsible for some of the most gruesome human experiments in history, were granted immunity by the US in exchange for their research data, which Washington considered useful for biological weapons development. The atrocities committed against Chinese, Korean, and Soviet prisoners were buried under Cold War secrecy, while war criminals went on to live freely, some even prospering in postwar Japan. These choices reveal a troubling double standard: while Germany and Japan were defeated militarily, their crimes were selectively forgotten when they became convenient allies against the Soviet Union and, later, China. This history carries a clear warning for the present. Just as Cold War politics led the West to cover up and even profit from fascist crimes, today’s elites in Washington, London, and Brussels are engaged in rewriting history to serve new confrontations. By downplaying the sacrifices of China and the Soviet Union and magnifying their own role, they prepare Western societies for a new round of hostility. Historical memory becomes a battlefield in itself, where uncomfortable truths are erased, and narratives are crafted to justify military build-ups and geopolitical confrontation. Read more Putin and Xi to lay foundations for a new world order in Beijing Unlike Western liberal elites, who have provoked new conflicts such as the war in Ukraine and revived militarism while attempting to rewrite history, China has taken a different path. It promotes peace, favors diplomacy over confrontation, and seeks to build international cooperation instead of division. One way it does so is by cultivating shared historical memory of the “World Anti-Fascist War,” as China refers to World War II. This year, Xi Jinping’s participation in Moscow’s Victory Day celebrations, Vladimir Putin’s planned presence in Beijing this September, and the joint Sino-Russian statement of May 8 all underscore that China and the Soviet Union bore the greatest sacrifices in defeating fascism and militarism. Both warned against revising the memory and outcomes of the war and reaffirmed their commitment to the UN-based international system. There was a time when even Western leaders acknowledged these facts. In April 1942, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated: “We remember that the Chinese people were the first to stand up and fight against the aggressors in this war; and in the future a still unconquerable China will play its proper role in maintaining peace and prosperity, not only in eastern Asia but in the whole world.” His words now sound prophetic. China does not commemorate its victory only to honor the past. It does so to remind the world that peace is never guaranteed – and that history must not be rewritten to serve temporary political interests. View the full article

The Russian and US presidents discussed holding direct talks with Kiev but no decision has been finalized, according to Yury Ushakov No deal has been reached between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump on the former holding talks with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky or on a trilateral summit, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov stated on Monday. Speculation of a possible Putin-Zelensky meeting arose in light of Trump’s talks with Putin in Alaska, after which the US leader claimed he had “begun the arrangements” for such a meeting, which might later expand into a three-way summit. Speaking on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in China on Monday, Ushakov confirmed that Putin and Trump had discussed raising the level of the negotiating team for direct talks between Moscow and Kiev, but stressed that no decision has been finalized. “What the press reports is not what we agreed on. They often talk about a trilateral meeting, about a meeting between Putin and Zelensky, but there was no agreement on this between Putin and Trump,” Ushakov said. He added that while the US delegation promised specific proposals on such meetings after Alaska, none have yet been made. The issue, he noted, remains under discussion. According to Ushakov, the Ukraine conflict was a key topic in Putin’s talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the SCO summit on Monday. He did not disclose details of those conversations. Speaking earlier in the day, Putin said Moscow values the efforts of its strategic partners to end the hostilities, and promised to brief colleagues on his conversations with Trump during bilateral talks. The Russian leader stressed that any potential Ukraine peace deal would only hold if “the root causes of the crisis… [are] eliminated.” He reiterated that one of the main causes of the conflict was the West’s “attempts to drag Ukraine into NATO, which represent a direct threat to Russia’s security.” View the full article

When most people hear the words sacred sexuality, they picture better orgasms, exotic positions, or maybe a workshop where everyone is sitting on floor cushions trying not to look awkward. Some think of the Kama Sutra, as if sacred sexuality could be boiled down to a catalog of acrobatics and advanced flexibility. I used to think the same—that it was about technique, about “spicing things up,” about finding some mystical upgrade to the bedroom. But sacred sexuality isn’t about sex at all. It’s about presence. It’s about showing up with your whole self—your breath, your attention, your messy humanness—and daring to be fully alive in a moment without performing or chasing an outcome. Sacred sexuality isn’t about what happens between bodies. It’s about how we inhabit our own body, our own breath, and our own truth. The Culture of Performance Our culture has turned sex into performance. It’s treated like a competition, complete with scorecards: attraction, technique, stamina, the grand finale. Intimacy becomes about “how well we did” instead of how deeply we connected. Sacred sexuality laughs at that. It doesn’t care about medals or rankings. It cares about honesty, breath, and presence. It asks: Can I be here fully? Can I touch without trying to take? Can I be touched without trying to prove anything? That’s a much scarier question than whether the candles are lit or the playlist is on point. What It Actually Is In Tantra, sexuality is seen as life force—the same energy that pulls the ocean tides and makes your heart race when someone you love brushes your hand. Sacred sexuality is about honoring that energy as divine. Sometimes it flows between two people. But sometimes it’s just you and your breath, sitting in silence, realizing that intimacy begins long before anyone else enters the room. It’s not about tricks or formulas. It’s not even about mastering every page of the Kama Sutra. It’s about dissolving the illusion that the sacred is somewhere else. Stirring soup can be sacred. A deep belly laugh can be sacred. Holding someone’s hand in silence can be sacred. Because when you strip it all down (pun intended), sacred sexuality is about reverence—for yourself, for another, for life itself. Beyond the Bedroom The secret is that sacred sexuality doesn’t stay in the bedroom. It spills into everything. It’s how you walk into a room and let your whole being arrive instead of just your body. It’s how you fold laundry with tenderness instead of resentment. It’s how a quiet meal shared with someone you love feels like prayer. Sacred sexuality is aliveness. It’s the soul actually inhabiting the skin. And once you taste that, you realize intimacy has very little to do with what happens under the sheets—and everything to do with how awake you are to life. Why This Matters We live in a culture obsessed with outcomes: how many likes, how much money, how many years together, how much pleasure. Sacred sexuality is the antidote. It says: Stop measuring. Start being. Because the paradox is this: the less you chase “better sex,” the more intimacy unfolds. The less you try to control, the more connection shows up. And that’s not just good for relationships. It’s good for life. The Takeaway Sacred sexuality isn’t about sex—it’s about love, freedom, and presence. It’s about honoring the energy that moves through us as divine, instead of reducing it to performance or achievement. It’s about remembering that intimacy is less about fireworks and more about the warmth of the flame. And here’s the kicker: sacred sexuality doesn’t guarantee forever any more than conscious relationships do. But it does guarantee honesty. It guarantees aliveness. It guarantees that, for however long it lasts, you are really there. Because sacred sexuality is less about what happens between bodies, and more about what happens when two souls dare to be fully present. iStock image The post Sacred Sexuality Isn’t About Sex appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Viktor Yanukovich said he wanted Ukraine to join the EU, but knew that membership in the military bloc would be “a disaster” Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich has said he had always been a staunch opponent of Ukraine joining NATO, warning that such a move would have sparked a civil war. Yanukovich served as president from 2010 to 2014, when he was ousted in the Western-backed Maidan coup and forced to flee the country, seeking refuge in Russia. Shortly afterward, the Ukrainian parliament formally stripped him of his presidential title. The protests began after Yanukovich decided to suspend preparations for Ukraine’s signing of an association agreement with the EU, explaining that the deal would have imposed harsh economic conditions and included terms he deemed unacceptable. Speaking to journalists on Monday, Yanukovich said he had always worked toward EU accession, which he described as a strategic goal of his presidency. “Indeed, I purposefully worked to bring Ukraine closer to the European Union and ultimately set the goal of Ukraine’s accession,” he said. However, in his words, Kiev’s Western European partners behaved condescendingly during the talks. “They showed no understanding of the complexity of Ukraine’s economic situation. Frankly, they displayed arrogance,” he added. Yanukovich stressed that while he had been firmly committed to pursuing Ukraine’s EU integration, he had always rejected NATO membership. He said he had “clearly and distinctly understood that this is a disaster for Ukraine” and a “road to nowhere.” “It is a direct path to civil war,” he emphasized. After Yanukovich’s ouster, which Moscow condemned as illegal, the new authorities in Kiev began openly working toward NATO membership, an ambition that was encouraged by the US. Russia has said these moves were among the root causes of the current conflict and has demanded that Ukraine remain neutral and refrain from joining military blocs as a part of any peace settlement. View the full article

By Josh Hasting While countertops often serve as convenient storage areas for frequently used items, overcrowding them with unnecessary or unsuitable objects can lead to clutter, hygiene issues, and potential hazards or financial waste. By identifying items that are better stored elsewhere, such as perishable foods, cleaning supplies, and small appliances with limited use, individuals can declutter their countertops, create a more functional and aesthetically pleasing kitchen environment, and save money. 1. Fruits Exposed to Ethylene Gas Certain fruits, like bananas and apples, release ethylene gas that can speed up the ripening of other produce. Store these in a bowl on the counter, but keep them away from veggies and fruits that are ethylene-sensitive, like avocados and berries. 2. Sponges and Cleaning Cloths Kitchens are full of moisture, making sponges and cloths prime targets for bacterial growth. Don’t let them become a hidden health hazard! Microwave damp sponges for 30 seconds to kill bacteria, or air dry them completely before storing them. Consider replacing them regularly. 3. Coffee Grounds Although they could be useful for a fast pick-me-up, coffee grounds also draw unwelcome pests like gnats. Store them in an airtight container in the pantry or freezer to maintain freshness and keep creepy crawlies at bay. If you’ve enjoyed reading our content and are passionate about learning wealth, managing your finances, and achieving financial freedom, we’d love for you to join our community! Click here to follow Invested Wallet for more. 4. Cookbooks We love a good cookbook, but countertops are a messy business. Flour spills, splatters of sauce – your favorite recipes can quickly become a greasy mess. Invest in a cookbook holder or store them on a nearby shelf. 5. Rarely Used Appliances Consider the popcorn machine you use a couple of times a year. These bulky appliances are space hogs. Store them away in cabinets or on a pantry shelf. They’ll be there when you need them, but not cramping your counter style. 6. Olive Oil Heat and light are enemies of olive oil. Exposure can break down the oil, making it lose its flavor and health benefits. Find a cool, dark cabinet for your bottle of liquid gold. 7. Pet Food and Bowls Fluffy’s kibble might seem convenient on the counter, but it can attract unwanted pests like ants and flies. Store pet food in sealed containers in a cool, dry place. And wash their bowls regularly, not right next to where you prepare your meals. 8. Electronics Kitchens are wet and prone to spillage, so keep phones, tablets, and even that sleek new smart speaker out of there. One accidental splash can mean an expensive tech funeral. Keep your electronics in a safe, dry zone. 9. Serveware Cake stands and platters are infrequently used objects that occupy valuable space. Find a cabinet or designated shelf for them. Beautiful serving pieces deserve a special place, not collecting dust on the counter. 10. Wine Bottles Sure, they look fancy, but constant temperature fluctuations and light exposure aren’t ideal for wine. Store bottles in a cool, dark place like a wine rack or cellar. Your vino will thank you for it. 11. Dirty Dishes Let’s be honest, we’ve all left a plate or two for “later.” But dirty dishes are a breeding ground for bacteria and fruit flies. Clear them promptly after meals, or rinse and load them in the dishwasher to keep your counter sparkling. 12. Vitamins and Medications Heat, light, and moisture can degrade the effectiveness of medications and vitamins. Store them in a cool, dry place like a cabinet or drawer, not on the counter where the stove and dishwasher reside. 13. Houseplants While greenery brightens a space, houseplants can harbor tiny critters or become a breeding ground for mold if not properly cared for. Admire them from afar on a windowsill or plant stand, but keep them away from your food prep zone. 14. Non-Refrigerated Vegetables Vegetables like potatoes, onions, and garlic are best stored in a cool, dark place rather than on the countertop. This prevents them from sprouting and keeps your counter clear for other uses. 15. Flammable Items Matches, lighters, and other flammable items should be kept away from the kitchen counter to avoid accidental fires. Store them in a safe place, far from heat sources like the stove or oven. Follow Invested Wallet For More If you’ve enjoyed reading our content and are passionate about learning wealth, managing your finances, and achieving financial freedom, we’d love for you to join our community! Click here to follow Invested Wallet for more. — Previously Published on The Invested Wallet. — Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. — Photo credit: iStock.com The post 15 Costly Mistakes Sitting on Your Kitchen Counter appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

When one thinks of bears they often think of the fuzzy cubs with the bright curious eyes and funny antics of tree climbing. As sweet as bears look they can be a force of nature, which is how Mother Earth designed it. How Americans came to fall in love with bears is an often misquoted story. In 1902 big game hunter former President Teddy Roosevelt was on a bear hunt with other hunters. They tied a bear to a tree and encouraged Roosevelt to shoot the tied up bear. Roosevelt refused saying that it was unsportsmanlike. News spread quickly shocking many but also planting the seed that shooting tied up animals was an unethical and cruel thing to do. A cartoon soon appeared of the incident followed by a stuffed animal called ‘teddy’s bear’ a.k.a. the teddy bear. That is how most Americans came to learn about bears since few had ever seen one. The cartoon that started a new way of thinking about bears and hunting Black Bears in Florida Unlike the Grizzly or Polar Bears the Black Bear is mostly an herbivore, though classified as omnivores they eat both plants and animals. They sustain themselves more on berries, grasses, nuts, and succulent plants which makes up nearly 80% of their diet. The remainder of their diet comes from insects, larvae, fish, honey, and occasionally carrion. Bears in Florida don’t have as thick a fur or as much fat as bears further north due to the year round heat. Black bears reproduce slowly and are susceptible to overkill, especially during unregulated hunts. A female reaches breeding age at 4 years and gives birth every 2-3 years depending on available food and habitat which can be depleted by droughts and wildfires along with development. We have all of those in Florida. Her cubs stay with her past the first year. A hunt would surely kill a nursing mom ultimately leaving her cubs orphaned and starving to death. Trophy hunters target breeding adults that disrupt the animals’ social structure and further slow reproduction. This biology negates the myth and lie of overpopulation. In 2015 it was estimated their population was about 4000 but exact numbers are impossible to get. After working on 3 state permits for FWC for 11 years I personally know how they inflate the numbers and exaggerate to fit their pre planned agenda. So where is the proof of 4000 bears? There is none. Population studies won’t even be completed until 2029. Hunting has never proven to resolve human/bear conflict most of which is caused by humans, sorry but it’s true. Humans that live in bear country often leave their trash out and not ‘bear proof’ and let their pets out unsupervised. I see stories like this all the time. It’s not bears, or any animal, that needs managing but people’s behavior. Education goes a long way and there’s been proof of that. Contrary to media stories designed to get attention and more readers bear attacks are rare. Black bears as they should be – wild and free The 2015 bear massacre In 2014 the Florida Fish Wildlife Commission (FWC) held hearings around the state, which I attended and spoke at, to gauge public opinion on a proposal to hunt bears. Only 1 commissioner opposed the hunt, he no longer sits on the commission, and the hunt went through. What was planned to be a 7 day event ended after 2 days because more bears were killed than planned. In the panhandle 3 times the number of bears allowed were killed. Over 3000 people had hunting permits to kill 300 bears. You do the math. Dead cubs, yearlings and nursing mothers were killed and photographed at checkpoints. Public disgust spread quickly as Florida’s shame was put on display on the international stage Click here to read about the 2015 disaster https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/26/florida-bear-hunt-ends-after-2-day-season/74612298/ The FWC Commissioners in charge Back in December 2024 the commission said no action was needed regarding the bear population. That all changed the following month when Commissioner Gary Lester asked, or was it demanded, the bear management division come up with a proposal for a bear hunt. Lester just happens to be vice president of the massive The Villages in central Florida a.k.a. bear country. He has a proposal to expand into Leesburg , no coincidence bears also live there. I suspect killing the bears to clear a path for his housing project is his agenda and why he cast his vote last May for yes on the hunt. Commissioner Rodney Barreto is a former Miami City cop during the 1980s, the heyday of the drug cartels, dirty deals and violence. Corruption seemed to be everywhere. In 2021 Barreto got into hot water when he tried to get several acres of submerged land he bought four years earlier, filled and dredged in the Lake Worth Lagoon. He tried to do this without state or FWC approval for the condos he planned. The media which still exposed corruption back then reported on it and the deal was squashed, though I suspect it will reappear again. It’s no wonder he votes for bear hunts in his mind land is only valuable if his buildings sit on them. He was quoted on video saying he’s a business man which begs the question why are developers and hunters the only commissioners of a so called wildlife conservation agency? Or is it just a CON? As of 2024 these are the listed active companies Rodney Barreto has, could be others: Otter Creek Investments, Inc. 1990 Otter Creek Market, Inc. 1991 235 Catalonia, Inc. 1996 Barreto Holdings, LLC 2002 Barreto Management Limited Liability Company 2003 12310 LLC 2005 Blue Water Express, LLC 2006 Bg Commercial, LLC 2007 Barreto Cunningham May Dudley, doing business as Floridian Partners, formed in 2009. They provide consulting, strategic advice, and lobbying services. The Company specializes in areas such as campaigns, elections, legislative, and insurance regulatory practices, as well as telecommunications and utilities. Silver Oak Plantation Ts, LLC 2010 Plan B Marine, LLC 2015 Bnm Opa, LLC 2016 ·Government Lot 1, LLC 2016 ·Barreto Capital LLC 2017 ·Btw Investments, LLC 2019 Rodney & Sheila Barreto Family Foundation, Inc 2019 Barreto Real Estate Group, LLC 2021 (run by son Bradley) Commissioner Preston Farrior is a big game bow hunter. He has lots of photos of himself with many dead animals he proudly displays with zero compunction. Of course he wants a cruel trophy by bow hunting of bears, he obviously enjoys killing from all of his published selfies on instagram and bow hunting magazines. Pictures show his true colors. Commissioner Gary Nicklaus claimed he wasn’t behind the secret plot to develop Florida state parks with golf courses, pickleball courts and spas. But he is partner of Nicklaus, Brown & Co which designs golf course all over the world. Of course it’s hard to believe Nicklaus, a former pro golfer himself, wasn’t pushing for golf courses. His father was famous golfer Jack Nicklaus who tried the same thing in 2011 where he would design them. Coincidence? Commissioner Steve Hudson, Vice Chair and also a hunter. He’s the CEO of Hudson Capital Group which is a huge development company. Conflict of interest? Commissioner Sonya Rood is a hunter, I think her vote for hunting is self-explanatory. At the May 2025 meeting in Ocala she pretended to not know how cruel archery was, hard to imagine a hunter not knowing that arrows rarely kill immediately that seems like hunter knowledge 101 to me. If it’s not clear that developers run this fake agency go back read it again. Not one commissioner has any tangible conservation expertise and was placed by either Gov. Scott or Gov. Desantis to hold the seat for more unnecessary development. All of which the commissioners and governors benefit from in some form. How do most people feel about bears? They want them protected not slaughtered as shown in FWC’s own bear management survey and nothing has changed except the agency’s attitude toward them. True colors of FWC Most of the public is unaware of the dirty tactics and secret deals FWC engages in but word is getting out. While the majority of people DO support conservation and protecting our air, water and food they are pretty much in the dark about the agencies their tax dollars pay for. Most are easily fooled with slick public relations stunts and by controlling the media. FWC knows few will take the time to research what’s really going on. When they do they’re shocked and angry. Click here to read more about how this agency really operates. They make claims of protecting Manatees, Panthers, Sea Turtles, the water and it’s all a lie. I’ve seen it firsthand. Also included in the article is how this agency lacks all decency or ethics. They have their own non- profit called Fish & Wildlife Foundation of Florida that admitted a whopping $10,777,105 on their 2020 IRS 990 tax form. https://www.realitycheckswithstacilee.com/post/florida-agency-gets-billion-budget-a-nonprofit-but-where-does-the-money-really-go Bear Warriors United has been working for years educating people who live in bear country about ‘bear proofing’ their trash. This non lethal method does work with a proven track record. Bears don’t want you trash but when their home is depleted of food they will look elsewhere. So would you if you were starving and had kids to feed. Katrina Shadix, founder of Bear Warriors had this enlightening statement “I think it’s important that word gets out that hunters are being used as tools, literally and figuratively, to wipe bears off the landscape which makes it easier to develop. The hunters are doing this at a time when habitat for wildlife is facing the biggest habitat loss and water contamination crises in the history of the state. Bears are the sentinels of our forests as manatees are the sentinels of our waters.” She added, and I agree, how reckless the government is. “and the government is taking great plea$ure….and profit.…in killing them both.” If we fail to save them who will? Former FWC law enforcement investigator speaks out about fraud & corruption I spoke with a former FWC law enforcement officer who worked there for 14 years , for 8 of those years as an investigator, also doing undercover work and as a rescue diver. For now we’ll use ‘John Doe’ as his name. We spoke in 2024 and he had this to say “you’ll never be able to prove things because the way they hide things is very intricate and detailed and they know exactly what their doing.” When explaining how FWC would investigate poachers he said they were the bigger offender killing as many animals as needed “so let’s say we wanted to infiltrate some poachers right, so we would go out and we would kill whatever that particular species would be but not just kill, we would kill I’m talking about hundreds and hundreds of deer, fish, alligators, you name it birds, squirrels, anything it took and this is not on the clock work. You’re getting paid but it’s not documented. So what the agency would have us do is go procure product, in other words, if they wanted to get some bad guys to look awesome to the media, you know some guys that were maybe killing a few deer we would go out and meet and kill droves of deer just to sell to them or we would go out, say they’re selling fish, we would go out and catch hundreds of them with the help of the biologists and we’d net them by the hundreds, thousands some time so we were committing felonies on the clock to catch people committing misdemeanors.” Click here to listen to the above clip about poaching He confirmed what I have also witnessed and long known that government work is a free pass to not work and how they don’t give care about wildlife or the oceans or anything but money. Regarding FDEP, they are charged with protecting the environment like the forests were the bears live, are just as corrupt. FWC and FDEP work in tandem but not for the greater good as they have both been co-opted by developers and politicians like Gov. Desantis who cater to them. “ Government work is a free pass to not doing sh*t . Nobody does anything about it So FDEP was the ultimate. It was very well known in state law enforcement if you were to get a job with FDEP that is a free pass to not doing sh*t for the rest of your life.” …….they don’t care if a thousand f*cking sea turtles die (I can also attest to that) it’s all a dog and pony show for both those agencies.” Click here to listen to the above clip about the truth about government agencies The full interview runs 50 minutes but you see how FWC really operates no matter what the species no matter what the damage it’s all lies, fraud and corruption for a few making money. The proposed 2025 hunt & how it will be more cruel After reading about who makes the decision and why, this is how it differs from 2015. This year marks an even more perverse and cruel policy to hunt bears. Aside from ignoring overwhelming public outcry against the hunt FWC is planning to push it through. This demonstrates what many have long known that government on all levels operates for themselves and the privileged that ‘$upport’ them. Those that stand in the shadows with large open pocketbooks and secret bank accounts truly run the government, put people in power via a rigged election system and write the laws and policies the public falsely thinks will help them. Among the new add-ons for 2025 are: Bait traps – Remember what Roosevelt said about tied up bears? Bait traps are very much like that. Picture yourself being a little hungry, you see a snack and go for it. Suddenly you’re shot for no reason. You didn’t attack, charge or bite anyone but killed anyway just because you were there. Now you know how the bears feel. This is what girly cowards do. Hounding/dog hunting – It’s barbaric, because it is. Never mind that British upper crust use dogs to rip apart foxes in their excuse of a tradition it’s no less unseemly and cowardly for any species. Imagine a pack of dogs, probably violently abused as this method is extra violent, chasing you. Being terrified you are conscious you can’t escape as they bite and rip your flesh from you causing extreme pain. Sounds like psychopathic behavior right? This is how many deer are killed in America too. Click here to see the truth about using dogs to hunt https://www.thedogwars.com/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLX269leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFERTVqQXdxNUFlcURTRGV4AR7eyyxvmOLjoP-FFGcXHTmb9PzNgSZmjGDlqWWQc9jmODUMWkIOjcllAKAQvQ_aem_PpoaO2MIBwzUUfG4HwwH5A NO check stations – Because when you do something so insidious you know deep down is a sick crime against nature you don’t want witnesses taking pictures. Why else would they ban the public? In 2015 photos of slaughtered cubs, yearlings and nursing mothers made the global internet trek around the world so FWC won’t have any of that this time. This is really just a plan to wipeout bears altogether. Archery – This may sound like a fun sport but death by arrow is slow and painful and not one any human would want for themselves. Using this method is for those that like to inflict pain. Beware of fake conservation or environmental groups who support hunting and spoke in favor of another bear hunt. “Bear is a game species. It’s time for us to have some level of bear hunt,” said Travis Thompson, executive director at the All Florida conservation organization as reported by the Associate Press May 21. 2025. How you can help Stop the Hunt Email the commissioners and ask them to vote NO in August on the 2025 bear hunt and ask how they don’t have a conflict of interest when their resume says otherwise Rodney.Barreto@MyFWC.com Steven.Hudson@MyFWC.com Preston.Farrior@MyFWC.com Sonya.Rood@MyFWC.com Albert.Maury@MyFWC.com Gary.Nicklaus@MyFWC.com Gary.Lester@MyFWC.com Morgan.Richardson@myfwc.com – Director, Hunting & Game Management Division Call and Email Governor DeSantis Tell him you oppose the hunt and support protecting black bears. Phone Number: (850) 717-9337GovernorRon.Desantis@eog.myflorida.com Email the FWC Subject: I Oppose the Florida Black Bear Hunt to: BearComments@MyFWC.com You can simply write: “I oppose the Florida black bear hunt.” Click to sign & share https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-florida-black-bear-trophy-hunt?fbclid=IwY2xjawLXyjpleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE5dHFPam04dW9XeEYyTTEwAR46XfKbd5moTDkCj1Q4tzXyac6BD7nVpz0pnEczJ9ELT5xpHTHMEjpNK0b-Ew_aem_imfbCWGu4AKfaJDDmPphMg **Attend the vote – Dates: August 13th – 14th, 2025 Time: 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM (Arrive at 7:30 am to register to speak). Location: Florida Highway Patrol Training Academy 75 College Ave., Havana, Florida 32333 Support groups working to save the bears https://www.beardefenders.org/florida https://bearwarriorsunited.com/stop-the-bear-hunt/ Call for a change of who sits on the FWC Commission, only true conservationists should ever be allowed to work for FWC or FDEP otherwise it’s just fraud. This is true in all 50 states. — This post was previously published on Reality Check with Staci Lee and is republished on Medium. *** You may also like these posts on The Good Men Project: White Fragility: Talking to White People About Racism Escape the “Act Like a Man” Box The Lack of Gentle Platonic Touch in Men’s Lives is a Killer What We Talk About When We Talk About Men Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. A $50 annual membership gives you an all access pass. You can be a part of every call, group, class and community. A $25 annual membership gives you access to one class, one Social Interest group and our online communities. A $12 annual membership gives you access to our Friday calls with the publisher, our online community. Register New Account Log in if you wish to renew an existing subscription. Username Email First Name Last Name Password Password Again Choose your subscription level Dating Masterclass - $999.00 - unlimited Dating Masterclass: How to Date and Create Satisfying and Lasting Love and Sexi in this Crazy, Modern World 5 Ways to Build Confidence - $99.00 - unlimited 5 Ways to Build Confidence and Make Meeting and Dating Women Less Nerve-Wracking Monthly Platinum - free - unlimited Monthly - $6.99 - 1 Month Yearly - $50.00 - 1 Year Sponsored Columnist Annual - $1,250.00 - 1 Year Sponsored Columnist Monthly - $150.00 - 1 Month Annual Platinum - $50.00 - 1 Year Annual Gold - $25.00 - 1 Year Monthly Gold - $20.00 - 1 Month Annual Bronze - $12.00 - 1 Year Credit / Debit Card PayPal Choose Your Payment Method Auto Renew By completing this registration form, you are also agreeing to our Terms of Service which can be found here. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. — Photo credit: iStock The post Florida Set for 2025 Bear Hunt (Massacre) Despite Public Outcry appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Check this out: Library Extension shows you what’s at over 5,000 libraries while you browse the web. You can borrow books, music or audiobooks without spending a dime. Best part? You don’t need to sign up. Get it on Chrome, Firefox and Edge. The post Check this out appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

Lithuania has already received funds for monitoring of its border with Russia’s Kaliningrad Region, the Commission president has said The EU intends to intensify its monitoring of trains traveling between mainland Russia and its Kaliningrad exclave through Lithuania, European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen has said. At a joint press conference with Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda on Monday, von der Leyen called Lithuania a “frontline state” facing “Russia in Kaliningrad” and accused Moscow of applying “geopolitical and economic pressure” on its neighbor. Lithuania shares a border with Belarus, Russia’s key ally, in the East, and with Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave in the West. ”Lithuania has a €357 million EU program that is dedicated for border management and visa policy,” von der Leyen announced, adding that “we have on a regular basis added money to it.” The bloc’s financial resources have, among other areas, been directed toward “surveillance capacities [for] tracking the trains… [traveling] between mainland Russia and Kaliningrad” as well as the “purchase of a helicopter.” Brussels has “proposed to triple investment in migration and border management” in the next long-term EU budget and increase military spending fivefold, she noted. In July, the EC unveiled a long-term €2 trillion ($2.33 trillion) draft budget for 2028-34, with a massive increase in military-related spending. Bloc member states have agreed on allocating €800 billion ($937 billion) until 2030 as part of the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) initiative. Rail traffic from Kaliningrad to the rest of Russia must pass through Lithuania. Soon after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Vilnius announced that it would block the transit of goods that fall under EU sanctions on its territory. Moscow accused Lithuania of mounting a blockade of Kaliningrad region. The situation was partially resolved, after the rail connection was reopened. Moscow has dismissed Western claims that it harbors aggressive plans toward EU countries as “nonsense,” and accused officials in Brussels of fearmongering to justify inflated military budgets. View the full article

Leading international experts, including from the UN and India, will meet in Vladivostok to discuss fragmentation and new global trade rules Leading international experts are set to descend on Russia’s Pacific city of Vladivostok to debate how to overcome fragmentation and shape a new framework for global trade. The Pacific port will this week host ‘The Future of the World. A New Platform for Global Growth,’ on September 5. The Open Dialogue platform was launched on the instruction of President Vladimir Putin, with its inaugural forum held in Moscow in April, bringing together more than 100 delegates from 48 countries. Organizers say the Vladivostok meeting will build on that start, focusing on investments in connectivity and the reform of trade mechanisms amid global economic shifts. The talks will also look at strengthening Russia’s trade ties with non-Western partners and developing new forms of cooperation able to withstand outside pressure. Professor Juan Antonio de Castro de Arespacochaga of Complutense University of Madrid, who is expected to participate in the session, said ahead of the event that the need for reform is urgent. “Global trade is becoming fragmented, fast, and technology-driven. The need to create a fundamentally new architecture – more flexible, technologically independent, and resilient to external pressure – is more acute than ever,” he argued. Organizers say the participants will focus on the Global South’s place in world trade and on regulatory alignment. Rupa Chanda, Director of the Trade, Investment and Innovation Division at the UN’s Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, will travel from India to present a report on overcoming global fragmentation. “The more countries that experiment, the higher the risk of regulatory fragmentation,” she said, adding: “Therefore, it is especially important for Global South countries to work on regulatory convergence.” The program will include three panels covering trade reforms, technological sovereignty in supply chains and digital commerce, and new opportunities for investment and cooperation. View the full article

With special guest Kristen Pressner You may know Kristen Pressner from her provocative TEDx talk “Are you biased? I am.” along with her ‘Flip it to test’ framework to check unconscious bias. Kristen joins us to highlight another sensitive subject, why is it that so many people ‘can’t get it together’? Kristen is a trailblazing people leader who believes in the potential in each of us. As Global Head of People & Culture for a prominent multinational company, her passion for equity and inclusion makes her a sought-after voice and she is often featured on international ‘Top HR Influencer’ lists. Julie Kratz and Kristen Pressner discuss: How to unlock the full potential of people to be their best, her family’s diagnosis with ADHD and how it shaped her thinking as a leader, and her journey to unlock the mystery of ADHD, neurodivergent brains and the potential consequences (including mental health).  Unlocking ADHD as a Superpower This episode features Kristen Pressner, Global Head of People and Culture for a prominent multinational corporation, and a trailblazing leader in equity and inclusion. Pressner shares the deeply personal backstory behind her new TEDx talk, “What if our understanding of neurodiversity is all wrong?” After realizing that her traditional HR and leadership strategies weren’t working with her own four children, she discovered that her entire family, except for herself, was neurodivergent. This eye-opening experience led her to question conventional understandings of neurodiversity and advocate for a more “brain-friendly” approach in all aspects of life, including the workplace. Pressner highlights a common unconscious bias: the belief that everyone is primarily motivated by importance. Through her family’s experience, she realized that many neurodivergent individuals are instead motivated by interest, which is highly individual and fluid. She argues that the modern world, shaped by industrial revolutions, has created systems (like regimented schooling and production-focused workplaces) that are not built for neurodivergent strengths, often leading to misdiagnoses of character flaws like laziness or lack of passion. Pressner advocates for shifting systemic approaches to be more accommodating, not just for neurodivergent individuals, but for everyone. She introduces the concept of being a “brain friend”—someone who is curious, non-judgmental, and willing to take small, individualized actions to optimize how others work and thrive. She emphasizes that neurodivergence often comes with “superpowers” like unique thinking, intense creativity, and resilience, which are valuable assets in any organization. Key Takeaways: Neurodiversity is Misunderstood: Neurodivergence often doesn’t look like what many people assume it does, and there’s a widespread misunderstanding of its manifestations. Motivation by Interest vs. Importance: While many assume importance is the primary motivator, neurodivergent individuals are often more driven by personal interest, challenging conventional approaches to engagement. Systemic Misfit, Not Character Flaw: The “failure to launch” or “can’t get it together” often attributed to neurodivergent individuals stems from systems (like schools and workplaces) not being built for their strengths, rather than a character flaw. Be a “Brain Friend”: To be an ally, adopt a “brain-friendly” approach: be curious, non-judgemental, and willing to make small, individualized accommodations to bring out the best in others. Neurodivergent Superpowers: Neurodivergence brings significant upsides, including unique thinking, hidden connections, flexibility, resilience, and intense imagination and creativity, which are highly valuable in the workplace. Accommodations Benefit All: Tweaks to systems to accommodate neurodivergent individuals, such as flexible work hours or quiet spaces, often benefit neurotypical people as well. Actionable Allyship Takeaway: When someone seems to be struggling to “get it together” in baffling ways, approach the situation with curiosity and non-judgment instead of assuming character flaws. Ask questions about how they are best optimized, recognizing that their brain may simply be wired differently, and be willing to make small, individualized interventions to bring out their best, which can lead to significant positive outcomes for everyone. Follow Kristen’s work at https://kristenpressner.com/ and find Julie at https://www.nextpivotpoint.com/ Full Episode Transcript Available Here — This post was previously published on Next Pivot Point. *** You may also like these posts on The Good Men Project: Escape the Act Like a Man Box What We Talk About When We Talk About Men Why I Don’t Want to Talk About Race The First Myth of the Patriarchy: The Acorn on the Pillow Subscribe to The Good Men Project Newsletter Email Address * Subscribe If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today. All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here. Photo credit: iStock The post Unlocking the Superpower of ADHD With Kristen Pressner appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article

Xi, Putin and Modi have lead calls in Tianjin for a UN-centered multipolar system, as Eurasian blocs tighten and the EU is sidelined The latest gathering of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Tianjin looks at first like another summit – handshakes, family portraits, scripted statements. But the meeting on August 31–September 1 is more than diplomatic theater: it is another marker of the end of the unipolar era dominated by the United States, and the rise of a multipolar system centered on Asia, Eurasia, and the Global South. At the table were Chinese President Xi Jinping, his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi – together representing more than a third of humanity and 3 of largest countries on Earth. Xi unveiled a broad Global Governance Initiative, including a proposed SCO development bank, cooperation on artificial intelligence, and financial support for developing nations. Putin described the SCO as “a vehicle for genuine multilateralism” and called for a Eurasian security model beyond Western control. Modi’s presence – his first visit to China in years – and the powerful optics around his meeting with Putin, signaled that India is willing to be seen as part of this emerging order. What just happened (and why it’s bigger than a photo-op) The pitch: Xi is promoting an order that “democratizes” global governance and reduces dependence on US-centric finance (think: less dollar gravity, more regional institutions). Putin called the SCO a vehicle for “genuine multilateralism” and Eurasian security. By calling China a partner rather than a rival, Modi signaled New Delhi won’t be locked into Washington’s anti-China agenda. The audience: More than 20 non-Western leaders were in the room, with United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres endorsing the event organisation – not a club meeting in the shadows, but a UN-centered frame at a China-led forum. Translation: “We want the UN Charter back – not someone else’s in-house rules” Beijing’s line is blunt: reject Cold War blocs and restore the UN system as the only universal legal baseline. That’s a direct rebuke to the post-1991 “rules-based international order”, drafted in Washington or Brussels and enforced selectively. Examples are not hard to find. The 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia went ahead without a UN mandate, justified under the “responsibility to protect.” The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was launched despite the absence of Security Council approval – a war later admitted even by Western officials to have been based on false premises. In 2011, a UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya was used by NATO to pursue outright regime change, leaving behind a failed state and opening a corridor of misery into the heart of Western Europe. For China, Russia and many Global South states, these episodes proved that the “rules-based order” was never about universal law but about Western discretion. The insistence in Tianjin that the UN Charter be restored as the only legitimate framework is meant to flip the script: to argue that the SCO, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and new members Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, plus Indonesia), and their partners are defending the actual rules of international law, while the West substitutes ad hoc coalitions and shifting standards for its own convenience. Both Xi and Putin drove the point home, but in different registers. Xi’s line: He denounced “hegemonism and bullying behavior” and called for a “democratization of global governance,” stressing that the SCO should serve as a model of true multilateralism anchored in the UN and the World Trade Organization (WTO), not in ad hoc “rules” devised by a few Western capitals. Putin’s line: He went further, charging that the United States and its allies were directly responsible for the conflict escalation in Ukraine, and arguing that the SCO offers a framework for a genuine Eurasian security order – one not dictated by NATO or Western-imposed standards. The architecture replacing unipolarity (it’s already here) Security spine: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization brings together Russia, China, India and Central Asian states to coordinate security, counterterrorism and intelligence – the hard-power framework that makes the rest possible. Economic boardrooms: BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) expanded in 2024 to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, followed by Indonesia in 2025. With its New Development Bank and a drive for trade in national currencies, it now acts as a counterweight to the Group of Seven (G7). Regional weight: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – a ten-member bloc shaping Asian trade and standards – increasingly aligns with SCO and BRICS projects. Energy leverage: The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), six Arab monarchies, coordinate policy through the wider Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Plus (OPEC+), giving them control over key oil flows. Taken together, these bodies already function as a parallel governance system that doesn’t need Western sponsorship or veto power. EU’s irrelevance The European Union (EU) is absent from Tianjin – and that absence speaks volumes. Once promoted as the second global pole, Europe is now tied to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for defense, dependent on outside energy, and fractured internally. Even its flagship Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) has soured relations with India and other Global South economies. In Tianjin, Europe was not a participant in decisions – only a spectator. After the talks, the tanks The SCO summit precedes China’s Victory Day military parade in Beijing on September 3, commemorating 80 years since Japan’s surrender in World War II. Xi, Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, with whom Moscow has a bilateral security pact, will stand together as Beijing showcases intercontinental missiles, long-range strike systems and drone formations. The spectacle will likely demonstrate that multipolarity is not just a form of diplomatic language, but that it backed by the hard power on display. Why Tianjin matters beyond Tianjin A rival rule-set with institutions: From a Shanghai Cooperation Organization bank to BRICS financing and potential ASEAN–GCC coordination, there is now a procedural path to act without Western oversight. UN-first framing: By anchoring legitimacy in the UN Charter, the bloc positions Western “rules-based” frameworks as partisan. India’s calculus: Modi’s public handshakes with Xi and Putin have normalized a Eurasian triangle that Washington and Brussels cannot easily fracture. Europe’s shrinking veto: EU regulations such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism no longer set the agenda in Eurasia, where energy, trade and security are coordinated elsewhere. The bottom line The Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin was less about formal speeches than about symbolism. It signalled that the unipolar world has ended. From development banks to energy corridors to parades of missiles, a new multipolar order is taking shape – and it no longer asks for Western permission. View the full article

🌕 Sign me up, Scotty: You could help track Artemis II, the first crewed moon mission in 50 years. The 10-day flight (set for April 2026) will loop astronauts around the moon. If you’ve got the gear to spot Orion, NASA wants your help. Basically, if you’re into backyard stargazing and unpaid work, this is right up your alley. The post Sign me up, Scotty appeared first on Komando.com. View the full article

Russia earlier said the West is using propaganda on gender relations to undermine its statehood Traditional values are being sidelined internationally and must be brought back to the center of the global agenda, Russian President Vladimir Putin has told leaders at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin. Speaking at the expanded session of the gathering on Monday, the Russian leader stressed that the SCO’s strength lies in its traditional “respect for historical events, cultural values, and civilizational diversity.” He added that these principles form the basis for cooperation in science and education, healthcare, and sports. Putin noted that in the cultural sphere, Moscow is organizing the Intervision song contest, to be held in Moscow on September 20. Portrayed as an alternative to Eurovision, from which Russia has been excluded due to tensions with the EU over the Ukraine conflict, Intervision is expected to feature performers from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. ”This large-scale project is aimed at promoting universal values… Traditional values are already fading into the background... It is time to bring them back to the international agenda,” he said. Putin also invited delegations to attend the St. Petersburg International United Cultures Forum next week, and the Russia – Country of Sports forum in Samara in November. Russia has made the promotion of traditional values a core domestic policy as it seeks to improve birth rates, encourage families, and protect the population from harmful content. In 2024, the parliament banned “child-free propaganda” and has for years been fighting LGBTQ propaganda. Russia has said, however, that it has never banned non-traditional relationships, arguing that the West uses the narrative regarding non-traditional relations to undermine its national identity and statehood. View the full article

The former acting mayor of Brussels’ Molenbeek district insists her remarks were only directed at xenophobic people A Belgian official has told critics of her Muslim headscarf to “get out” of the country, according a video circulating online. Saliha Raiss, a city council member for the social-democratic Vooruit party, made the controversial remarks during a municipal council session in Brussels’ Molenbeek district last Wednesday. “If people wearing headscarves bother you so much, if you don’t want to see us anymore, move... Go somewhere else, get out!” Raiss is heard saying in the clip. The footage, posted on X by Georges-Louis Bouchez, leader of the Reformist Movement (MR), quickly went viral and made headlines. In the post, Bouchez accused Raiss of racism and “imposing a new cultural norm” by attacking those who oppose religious symbols in the administration. Elon Musk reposted the clip with the caption: “Belgians must leave Belgium!? This is insane.” Post 🇫🇷& 🇺🇸 🇫🇷🚨📣 Quand L’Extrémisme Parle À Visage Découvert‼️@elonmusk réagit à ce post ⬇️ « Saliha Raiss, une femme politique de Molenbeek, veut une Europe sans Européens : “Quiconque n’accepte pas les femmes voilées, quiconque n’accepte pas l’islam en Belgique, peut… https://t.co/tKxESmVJwp pic.twitter.com/DgtJfJ7yzX — Sylvia Miami (@sylviamiami1776) September 1, 2025 Belgian media came to Raiss’ defense, claiming the words had been taken out of context. RTL Info reported the remarks came during a debate over a Facebook post on the MP party page criticizing the leaders of Molenbeek. The post drew anti-Muslim comments aimed at Raiss, then acting mayor. In the full video, she condemned MR for not deleting the post, calling them “deplorable and disgusting” and accusing the party of “condoning racism.” Belgians must leave Belgium!? This is insane. https://t.co/5UUPWY1NDv — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 31, 2025 Commenting on the incident on Monday, Raiss stood by her words and insisted they were not aimed at Belgians in general, only at those making racist comments. “I don’t regret it at all. My comments were taken out of context … I was targeting racist and xenophobic people. In no way did I make remarks against all the citizens of our beautiful town and country,” she told RTL. Vooruit party leader Conner Rousseau defended Raiss, saying she spoke in frustration as she often has to deal with racist remarks due to being Muslim, and noting that “what’s being made of that statement now by the MR and the far-right Musk is simply fake and false.” Raiss said she is considering filing a slander complaint against Bouchez, accusing him of spreading “lies” with a “doctored” video. View the full article

Enough. Enough already! The ‘anti-woke’ fervor and hysteria in the U.S. has gotten way, way out of hand. It’s spreading like a deadly mutant fungus and taking over our nation, closely paralleling the grim sci-fi hellscape of “The Last of Us.” I, for one, have had enough. I’ve seen and heard enough hateful ‘anti-woke’ nonsense to last several lifetimes. At this point, my astonishment at the intensity of ‘anti-woke’ hysteria has faded, but now I’m left with a simple question: What the heck is so wrong and bad about being ‘woke’? The crazed excesses of the ‘anti-woke’ mob Answering my question requires some crucial clarification(s). After all, what do we even mean when we use the term ‘woke’? By now, it’s crystal clear that MAGA, Trump, and the GOP use the term only in a derogatory and mean-spirited way. And the way they use it is intentionally inflammatory and divisive. Sadly, conservatives latched onto a few excesses among progressives — such as an overemphasis on ‘correct pronouns’ or support for all illegal immigrants. Then, they totally overreacted… and threw the baby out with the bathwater. They chose to mock and disparage all ‘wokeness’ — social awareness — to the point that the essence of ‘wokeness’ has been turned upside-down and twisted beyond all recognition. The far right has successfully turned ‘wokeness’ into a ridiculous and dangerous caricature — and line of attack. Now, even the Kennedy Center honors are too ‘woke’! The Smithsonian Museums are all too ‘woke’ (that is, historically accurate). Laws that protect minorities and their voting rights are now too ‘woke.’ Anything resembling ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ is way too ‘woke’! And defending women’s right to choose and their families’ right to family planning is now… horribly ‘woke.’ All social conscience must be ruthlessly suppressed Oh, I forgot: even the name ‘Kennedy Center’ was deemed ‘unacceptably woke,’ since it honors a liberal Democrat, JFK. Plus, our resident woke-hater-in-chief, DJT, lusted for the prestige associated with the Kennedy Center — and decided to take it over. He fired the board, made himself the head honcho, and plans to rename it — possibly as the Melania Trump Center. Or maybe the Donald J. Trump Center. Shudder. It gets worse. Even the society-wide effort to finally rid ourselves of statues and military bases honoring Confederate ‘heroes’ (traitors) has come under intense fire. In Texas, Fort Hood was renamed Fort Cavazos to honor a brilliant Hispanic general — and that led to a huge backlash since it was doubly ‘woke.’ That is, the Army got rid of the Confederate name and replaced it with a (horrors!) Hispanic name. That was totally intolerable to the GOP — so they refused to honor Cavazos and pressured the Army to reverse course. Acting together, they brazenly stripped away his name, and the base then reverted to the original name ‘Fort Hood.’ Like I said: the ‘anti-woke’ hysteria in the U.S. has gotten way, way out of hand. The right’s sneak attack on ‘equality and justice for all’ Here’s another crucial question: what, exactly, is the right so upset about? Why are they so opposed to any form of ‘wokeness’? I hate to say it, but it’s evident that the far right and almost the entire GOP are strongly opposed to racial fairness, increasing equity, and inclusivity. They are firmly in the racist, White supremacist camp, but don’t want to come right out and praise and promote racism. No, they can’t appear to be heavily racist… but still want and ‘need’ to push a racist, White-centered agenda. So — what to do? My take on the (hateful) right-wing thought process looks something like this: “Hey, here’s a perfect solution… a fabulous scapegoat, really. Let’s go after ‘wokeness,’ attack it mercilessly, exaggerate it, and turn it into a caricature. Let’s cynically use ‘wokeness’ as a battering ram against minorities, liberals, progressives, and left-leaning women. Yes, indeed, it’s a wonderful ‘twofer’: we get to attack and take down the ‘libs’ and greedy minorities and also slyly support more racism, oppression, and inter-racial conflict! Yeah, baby!” It’s been a golden opportunity for the right and the GOP — one they’ve embraced and pursued with gusto. The true, original meaning of ‘woke’ OK. Ugh. After that foray into depraved rightwing BS, let’s look at the real meaning of ‘woke.’ Of course, being ‘woke’ implies being awake and aware — and this was its original (still applicable) meaning. It originated as an expression in the Black community that emphasized awareness of deep cultural imbalances and ongoing racist practices. It sought to raise awareness about structural racism and Blacks’ (and later, Hispanics’) struggle for racial parity and economic equity. In other words, being ‘woke’ meant being aware of real, active societal trends and forces that oppress or persecute non-Whites. It was simply a natural, intelligent social response to overt or subtle oppression. Then, over time, many ideas subsumed under the banner of ‘wokeness’ spread into the wider society and became cornerstones of the civil rights movement — something the far right has always hated and vowed to reverse. (As we all know, over the past decade, they’ve grabbed their golden opportunity and run with it.) But if we think about the deeper symbolism of ‘woke’ vs. ‘anti-woke,’ it’s clear that the far right and today’s GOP do not support liberal democracy or the social and philosophical ideals of the Enlightenment. Our representative democracy sought to incorporate Enlightenment ideals like rationality, individual freedom, equality, and the separation of church and state. Over the last 70 years, the U.S. made some (a few) significant inroads into actually achieving these goals — until the last 15 years or so. Since the presidency (2009–2017) of Barack Obama — the nation’s first and only Black president — our nation’s racists, White supremacists, and Christian nationalists have gone apeshit. They are furious about increasing equality, racial diversity, and inclusiveness (that is, about most Enlightenment ideals) and are now determined foes of liberal democracy. That’s the underlying rationale behind the fierce right-wing attacks on DEI. It must be said, without any exaggeration: they intentionally promote (overtly or covertly) ‘endarkenment’ and racist hate. Imagine: they actually prefer — and insist on — increased racism, misogyny, oppression of minorities, and oppression of LGBTQ+ folks. They love their racism, misogyny, and hatred, and do not want to let it go or help heal our society. The ultimate choice: openness and love vs. fear, anger, and hate In the bluntest psychological and psycho-social terms, the ‘anti-woke’ mob rejects open-minded, inclusive, compassionate, and loving states of being. Instead, they foster and cling to the opposite. Sadly — horrifyingly — they willfully choose to be closed-minded, mean-spirited, racist, and hateful, and thus choose an emotionally destructive, contracted state of mind and heart (that’s also incredibly destructive socially). Hmm… really?! In terms of overall human happiness and fulfillment, which sounds better: living an expansive, inclusive, compassionate, and loving life, OR ‘living’ in a shrunken, contracted state of closed-minded, violence-prone, racist hate? To me, this isn’t even a choice. Who in their right mind would ever choose a shrunken, ugly, hate-filled life? Yet, amazingly, tens of millions of modern ‘civilized’ Americans are choosing exactly that. I’m sorry, but this is just nuts! C-r-a-z-y, and ever crazier. It’s an insane and highly destructive choice. In reality — you know, the world and life we actually inhabit — the healthy, healing choice is clear. In every possible way, being ‘woke’ (in its original meaning) is far superior to being stubbornly ‘anti-woke.’ S0 — Hell, yeah! I support being awake, aware, and ‘woke’ anytime, anywhere! I’m definitely ‘woke’ — and proud of it. — This post was previously published on medium.com. Love relationships? We promise to have a good one with your inbox. Subcribe to get 3x weekly dating and relationship advice. Did you know? We have 8 publications on Medium. Join us there! Hello, Love (relationships) Change Becomes You (Advice) A Parent is Born (Parenting) Equality Includes You (Social Justice) Greener Together (Environment) Shelter Me (Wellness) Modern Identities (Gender, etc.) Co-Existence (World) *** – Photo credit: Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash The post Woke — and Proud of It appeared first on The Good Men Project. View the full article