Tag: Post–World War II economic expansion

The “Sexual Revolution:” An Unwitting Instrument of Capitalist Counterrevolution’s Devastating Public Health Legacy

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

The so-called “sexual revolution” that began in the 1960s and 1970s, hailed by bourgeois liberals and postmodern academics as a triumph of individual liberation and progressive reform, also became bound up with deeply reactionary phenomenon. From advancing the cause of human emancipation, it became a critical component of the broader social counterrevolution orchestrated by the ruling classes to undermine the potential of the working class. This pseudo-liberation, rooted to a notable extent in the decay of capitalist society, has contributed directly to profound negative impacts on public health, including the explosive proliferation of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), mental health crises, and the commodification of human relationships under the guise of “freedom.”

The “Sexual Revolution:” An Unwitting Instrument of Capitalist Counterrevolution’s Devastating Public Health Legacy

Related:

Lies about the Holodomor, Joseph Stalin, & the U.S.S.R.

Trotskyism

Trumpism, NATO and the Ukraine war

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Trumpism, NATO and the Ukraine war (original)

“Two years ago, General Mark A. Milley, then President Biden’s chief military adviser, suggested that neither Russia nor Ukraine could win the war. A negotiated solution, he argued, was the only path to peace. His comments caused a furor among senior officials. But President-elect Donald J. Trump’s victory is making General Milley’s prediction come true,” wrote The New York Times in an article published last week, part of a growing line of arguments by those who fear that the arrival of the new Republican administration will mean leaving Ukraine to its own devices. These articles, present in all major American and European media, take literally Trump’s desire to end the war and his lack of interest in the situation in Ukraine. This has also been helped by the words of JD Vance, who, from his ignorance of the conflict, has proposed a plan that can only satisfy Russia, or the exalted response of Donald Trump Jr. after the confirmation of the American permission to use Western missiles against targets on the territory of mainland Russia. Sometimes, think-tankers and experts also add Trump’s disdain for NATO or his desire not to rescue member countries that do not meet the minimum investment required by the Alliance in the event of a Russian attack.

Read More »

NATO to expand Asia-Pacific presence by opening office in Japan + What can China do about it?

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Last week, news emerged that NATO intends to open a liaison office in Tokyo, Japan next year. The office would be NATO’s first in the Asia-Pacific region and represents the increasing role of the organisation in preparation for a US-led war against China. Both Tokyo and NATO have confirmed the plans.

NATO to expand Asia-Pacific presence by opening office in Japan

Related:

What can China do against NATO’s foray into Asia?

So what can China do to respond to this attempt at ‘alliance encirclement’ against it? First, it can strengthen its ties with Russia and aim to create a deeper balance of power in the Asia-Pacific. Secondly, it can revitalize old alliances and strengthen its ties with North Korea as a military partner. After all, the DPRK is still obligated by the 1961 treaty of mutual assistance to come to China’s aid in a war and can be used to contain Japan and South Korea. Thirdly, it can look to build new military partnerships with regional countries who feel similarly threatened by US expansionism; for example, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar. While the rest of ASEAN are likely to stay neutral, including Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam (excluding the US-aligned Philippines), China should work to improve its relationships with these countries in order to prevent the US from trying to ‘force’ them to choose.

Opinion: Blinken ponders the post-Ukraine-war order

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Opinion: Blinken ponders the post-Ukraine-war order

Crimea is a particular point of discussion. There is a widespread view in Washington and Kyiv that regaining Crimea by military force may be impossible. Any Ukrainian military advances this year in Zaporizhzhia oblast, the land bridge that connects Crimea and Russia, could threaten Russian control. But an all-out Ukrainian campaign to seize the Crimean Peninsula is unrealistic, many U.S. and Ukrainian officials believe. That’s partly because Putin has indicated that an assault on Crimea would be a tripwire for nuclear escalation.

The administration shares Ukraine’s insistence that Crimea, which was seized by Russia in 2014, must eventually be returned. But in the short run, what’s crucial for Kyiv is that Crimea no longer serve as a base for attacks against Ukraine. One formula that interests me would be a demilitarized status, with questions of final political control deferred. Ukrainian officials told me last year that they had discussed such possibilities with the administration.

As Blinken weighs options in Ukraine, he has been less worried about escalation risks than some observers. That’s partly because he believes Russia is checked by NATO’s overwhelming power. “Putin continues to hold some things in reserve because of his misplaced fear that NATO might attack Russia,” explained the official familiar with Blinken’s thinking. This Russian reserve force includes strategic bombers, certain precision-guided weapons and, of course, tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

Are they really this delusional?!