*
LETTER FROM KAFKA
Dear Fräulein K, I can’t believe you ask,
Does God love us? You must joke.
We are the suicidal thoughts of God.
I always have a headache ready,
can easily arrange insomnia.
Today a neighbor coughed twice;
I know tomorrow
he’ll cough even more.
Do I complain too much?
My motto: If we cannot use arms,
let us embrace with complaints.
If only I could be not the nobody I am,
but the nobody I am paid to be.
On a balcony in my mind I leaned
to peony petals rimmed with rain,
when my superior, that good
sober man, asked if we carried
insurance for convicts —
I almost slapped him with both hands.
You see what an impossible
person I am. What strength it takes
to read this letter.
How you must hate me.
But I am unworthy of hate.
My father meanwhile grows and grows,
one colossal leg already in America —
he’s sprawling across the continents.
We have nothing in common, but then
what do I have in common with myself?
I must move away from home:
the sight of my parents’ nightshirts
makes me sick to the stomach.
I think of marriage
even more often than of death.
If only I could spend my life
in a cellar with nothing but paper
and pen, a ribbon of light
seeping in at the edge of the door —
But I won’t torment you by mail;
I’ll save it up until we meet.
If writing is prayer, who am I praying to?
not to the one who hangs
around our neck our daily stone.
Perhaps we shouldn’t meet.
I resent having to talk
when I could be writing you a letter.
You ask: But what is art?
Dear Fräulein: there is no art.
There is only the delight of failure.
Kindest Regards, K
~ Oriana
*
KAFKA’S TRIAL — A VISION OF TOTALITARIAN “JUSTICE”
Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., because he had done nothing wrong, but one day he was arrested.
Kafka opens with these disconcerting words, setting the tone for the rest of the novel, as what follows is a deeply disturbing account of a man placed at the mercy of (until then unknown) law courts. Although K. maintains adamantly that he is innocent, at no point is there a hint given of the crime K. may have committed, adding to the reader's confusion as they are given as little information as K. and so cannot judge whether the appropriate ending would be conviction or acquittal.
Absolute acquittal is soon discovered to be an impossible dream, as is the possibility of a fair trial which is not influenced entirely by court politics and inter-relationships. Thus Kafka presents a bleak world where a once respectable bank clerk is suddenly prosecuted for apparently no reason at all, and does not even have the benefit of an effective lawyer to represent him. It is, therefore, not a particularly heart-warming read, and requires plenty of close attention to understand the intricate concepts – though the language is thankfully relatively direct and simple. For example, the story of a doorkeeper who prevents a man entering the realm of 'the law', is explained to K. by a Priest who gives him many possible interpretations, each of which I had to read a number of times to fully understand.
K. himself is not a particularly sympathetic character, as he is unnecessarily rude to his landlady, Mrs Grubach, and takes advantage of his neighbor Miss Burstner in the opening chapters. Yet I felt that this only made the story more chilling, as he seems to have a few imperfections like every human, but these in themselves do not warrant his arrest.
Initially K. fights back, taking over his hearing to implore the court that the proceedings are unjust. However, his resolve is beaten down by the inevitability of prosecution, and only at the nightmarish end (which I do not want to ruin by describing) does the reader truly understand the extent to which K. has contributed to his own destruction by his compliance with the officials.
The Trial is deeply thought-provoking in its uncomfortable presentation of a world where people are observed by secret police and suddenly arrested, reflecting the social turmoil in Europe around the time Kafka wrote it in 1914. There are striking parallels to Orwell's 1984 where the protagonist is observed constantly and people are punished by the totalitarian state for actions which seem harmless, such as 'thought-crime'. As such, fans of fiction which presents a disturbingly realistic alternative world ruled by oppression would enjoy The Trial. While the plot itself is rather slow — as K. simply discovers more about the trial process, rather than enacting a fast-paced adventure scheme to overthrow the court — it is worth reading for the important and interesting concepts Kafka raises.
https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2014/dec/15/review-franz-kafka-trial
Oriana:
Typically, all reviews of Kafka’s Trial start by quoting the first sentence: “Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested.” But what I remember best is the sentence “The attractive ones are always guilty.”
One way this could be interpreted is that the unearned privilege of being attractive means being aware of your power to hurt — you could hurt someone’s feeling with rejection, and you must take care not to appear to be inviting a relationship if you don’t mean it.
But it’s not like Kafka to be giving self-help advice. More likely he meant something darker: the attractive ones can’t escape the power of their attractiveness, which damages them as well.
Jeremy Irons in The Trial
~ Some of the [literary crtics]s were motivated by a desire to dismiss Kafka as a handwringing bourgeois do-nothing—or even a “pre-fascist.” Others expressed a willingness to excuse Kafka’s alleged “indifference to social policy” by appealing to his loose associations with socialist or anarchist circles. All of them, Werckmeister argues, are missing the obvious: They underestimate Kafka’s role as a lawyer at the Worker’s Accident Insurance Institute, in Prague, where he imposed workplace safety regulations on unwilling industrial employers:
“Thus at the highest echelons of a semipublic, government-sanctioned institution enacting social policy, Kafka’s job was to regulate the social conduct of employers vis-à-vis the working class… The employers under Kafka’s supervision tenaciously resisted the application of recent Austrian social policy laws, which were adapted from Bismarck’s legislation in Germany. They contested their risk classifications, disregarded their safety norms, tried to thwart plant inspections, and evade their premium payments. The department headed by Kafka was pitted against them in an adversarial relationship, no matter how conciliatory the agency’s mission was meant to be.”
Kafka’s tales are a reflection of the deep obstacles to progress he perceived in the social reality of his time. He even “anticipated the political self-critique of literature to the point of its nonpublication,” keeping most of his writing private, then asking that the manuscripts for The Trial and The Castle be destroyed upon his death (a wish that was, thankfully, not honored). But the critical focus has been trained on the received version of Kafka, an interpretation of his life derived under exigent circumstances—the eruption of fascism in Europe—for ideological purposes. It has been trained, so to speak, on the Kafkaesque, instead of on Kafka himself.
For Werckmeister, it’s true that Kafka’s fiction ultimately offers the most reliable guide to his political orientation, provided we understand that fiction in the context of his professional life. At work, he took the side of the working class—indeed, he represented its interests in a struggle against capital. He was “a man who tried to live his life according to principles of humanism, ethics, even religion.” As a direct result of that experience, he learned the disturbing truth that, in the law, “Lies are made into a universal system,” as he wrote in the penultimate chapter of The Trial. The best he could manage within the law still would be a far cry from real justice (which, Kafka also knew, would have to include sexual justice to be anywhere near complete).
Maybe Werckmeister is right about the political motives of critics like Arendt, but what about the plunging sense of unease—like a feeling of falling—that no one can quite seem to shake when they first encounter Kafka’s stories?
It’s Funny Because It’s True
I’m here to suggest, following Werckmeister, that this feeling results from the fact that Kafka’s stories, despite their bizarre premises, are unnervingly real. Although there is undoubtedly an element of the absurd in the worlds Kafka creates, his style—unpretentious and specific, yet free from slang—renders those worlds with such painful accuracy that they seem totally familiar while we’re in them, like déjà vu or a memory of a bad dream:
~K. turned to the stairs to find the room for the inquiry, but then paused as he saw three different staircases in the courtyard in addition to the first one; moreover, a small passage at the other end of the courtyard seemed to lead to a second courtyard. He was annoyed that they hadn’t described the location of the room more precisely; he was certainly being treated with strange carelessness or indifference, a point he intended to make loudly and clearly. Then he went up the first set of stairs after all, his mind playing with the memory of the remark the guard Willem had made that the court was attracted by guilt, from which it actually followed that the room for the inquiry would have to be located off whatever stairway K. chanced to choose. ~
Isn’t it, after all, the sense that Kafka—the voice on the page—is firmly in touch with reality that makes it feel acceptable to laugh at the deranged goings-on in The Trial? His jokes are technical achievements, yes, but they also speak to a feeling of loneliness that typifies the modern condition. Kafka himself couldn’t resist laughing when asked to read aloud from his work. To orchestrate this kind of laughter—to borrow a word from Wallace—might have offered relief from the relentless (and political) self-criticism that drove Kafka to conceal his writings. Kafka’s suppression of information gets us to let our emotional guard down. He contrives narrative tension so that he can shock us, confronting us anew with injustices to which we’ve become numb.
https://daily.jstor.org/franz-kafkas-the-trial-its-funny-because-its-true/
The inscription says: "There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism."
*
THE YOUNG ARE “DOOM SPENDING”
shoppers white shoes
Some young people are splashing out on luxuries like travel and designer clothes instead of saving, in a trend that’s being characterized as “doom spending” on social media.
Doom spending is when a person mindlessly shops to self-soothe because they feel pessimistic about the economy and their future, according to Psychology Today.
The practice is both “unhealthy and fatalistic,” Ylva Baeckström, a senior lecturer in finance at King’s Business School and a former banker, told CNBC.
It’s happening because young people are chronically online and feel like they’re constantly receiving “bad news,” she said. “It makes them feel like Armageddon.”
These young people are then translating these bad feelings into bad spending habits, Baeckström added.
In fact, 96% of Americans are concerned about the current state of the economy and more than a quarter are doom spending to deal with the stress, an Intuit Credit Karma survey of over 1,000 Americans found in November 2023.
And the phenomenon is not exclusive to America.
Stefania Troncoso Fernández, a 28-year-old publicist based in Colombia who lives with her parents, told CNBC Make It that she’s a recovered doom spender, but that high levels of inflation and political uncertainty make it very difficult to rationalize saving money.
“I know for a fact that food [costs] are getting higher and higher every day, and in my house we can’t afford to eat the same way we did maybe a year ago because things are getting more expensive,” Fernández said.
Two years ago, Fernández said she was spending carelessly on clothes and travel despite the fact that she was earning less money than she does now. It was largely because she felt like she couldn’t afford to buy a house.
“We used to have this program by the government that would lend us money to invest in real estate and at a really low rate, but with the change of government, that is not available for us anymore so we will need to pay more,” she said.
And Fernández said she’s not alone in doom spending. “It’s not just me. It’s something that is happening within my circle.”
THE FIRST GENERATION THAT’S GOING TO BE POORER THAN THEIR PARENTS
Only 36.5% of adults globally feel like they’re doing better than their parents financially while 42.8% think they’re actually worse off than their parents, according to CNBC’s International Your Money Financial Security Survey, conducted by Survey Monkey which questioned 4,342 adults globally.
“The generation growing up now is the first generation that’s going to be poorer than its parents for a very long time,” Baeckström said. “There’s that feeling that you might never be able to achieve what your parents achieved.”
The sense of trying to escape
Daivik Goel, a 25-year-old startup founder living in Silicon Valley, said he was a doom spender when he worked as a product engineer at a biotech startup.
The habit originated from a sense of dissatisfaction with his work as well as peer pressure, he said. “It’s just all the sense of trying to escape.”
Goel, who used to spend lavishly on designer clothes, the latest technology products and going out for drinks, says doom spending is very common in Silicon Valley.
He said people will buy two of three brand-new cars, “and the reason why is because they realize that saving up for a house is going to take a very long time ... so they will spend on other different items instead.”
San Francisco has some of the highest property prices in the U.S., according to a 2023 analysis by real estate website Point2. It found that 62% of properties listed in San Francisco cost over $1 million.
Goel says that since starting his fintech company Intrepid in 2023, his doom spending habit has “completely gone” because he’s found happiness in his work. “My whole mindset shifted.”
Get to know your relationship with money
Finance lecturer Baeckström stressed the importance of understanding your relationship with money if you want to overcome doom spending.
She said a relationship with money is like a relationship with people: it starts during childhood and sees people form different types of attachments.
“If you feel like you have a secure attachment with money, you can make a sound evaluation of something. You gather knowledge and you can evaluate [it] ... But if you are insecure, or if you’re avoidant, then you’re more likely to get lured into this unhealthy spending behavior.”
These attitudes stem from a person’s upbringing: whether they were rich or poor, for example, how their family managed money, and who controlled it, Baeckström said.
Fernández said part of the reason she had felt compelled to doom spend was a lack of financial literacy. She said her dad grew up poor and nobody had ever encouraged her to save.
Increase the pain of paying
Making a transaction more visceral and difficult can make people think twice about doom spending, Samantha Rosenberg, co-founder and COO of Belong, a wealth-building platform, told CNBC Make It.
Rosenberg explained that online shopping aggravates the doom spending issue, but looking at items in-person may prevent impulse purchases.
“The extra decision points like choosing the store, traveling there, evaluating the item in the flesh, and then having to stand in line to buy it will help you slow down and think more critically about your purchases,” she said.
Additionally setting up mobile banking notifications creates an “extra pinch of pain” when you see the transaction authorizations coming through.
Rosenberg also recommended maybe going back to using cash. Seamless payment methods like Apple Pay and Google Pay “increase the risk of mindless spending,” she said, because it’s so quick and easy.
“They bypass the emotion associated with the purchasing decision process. They also eliminate the pain of handing over money,” Rosenberg said. You have to “increase the pain of paying,” she added.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/23/young-people-are-doom-spending-heres-what-it-is-and-how-to-stop-it.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
Oriana:
I understand “doom-spending” to some degree. If faced with the verdict of “not much longer to live,” one of the things I’d do is buy a lot of chocolate of all kinds (assuming that my sense of taste would still be there, which may not be true if undergoing chemo — but would I really choose to have chemo if studies showed that it can buy at most a few extra weeks?)
But never mind me and chocolate. I can also understand buying clothes as a substitute for what you’d really much rather have: a true and stable love relationship — loving and being loved by the right person. When you can’t have what you really want, you seek substitutes. Mindless shopping is an addiction just like drinking. Alas, I speak from experience.
from another source:
The Intuit Credit Karma study found that a little more than a quarter (27%) of all Americans doom spend to cope with stress, including 35% of Gen Zers and 43% of millennials.
"Many young people are discouraged right now. Housing prices are very high – both rent and purchasing. I've heard many millennials and Gen Zers say they know they'll never be able to afford a home of their own," Kendall Meade, a certified financial planner at SoFi, said in an email.
She explained that many young adults also have student loan payments and are so overwhelmed that they just spend whatever's left each month instead of saving it.
"These cohorts have come of age in a period marked by economic instability, stagnant wages and increasing living costs, which can lead to heightened financial anxiety," Cameron Burskey, a partner and managing director of Retirement Security at Cornerstone Financial Services, said in an email.
He added that younger individuals often lack the financial literacy and long-term perspective needed to resist impulsive spending, especially when faced with the immediacy of stressors.
What Is Fueling Doom Spending?
Nearly all Americans (96%) are concerned about the current state of the economy and two-thirds say it's giving them anxiety, according to the study. Some of the most pressing stressors include inflation, the inability to afford necessities, going into debt and not having money to spend on things that bring happiness.
These feelings are understandable, as the cost of living has increased by 20.8% since 2020.
"I believe that with inflation increasing so much over the past few years, people are very discouraged that their paychecks aren't going as far. They've given up on accomplishing their goals and are just trying to survive but want to treat themselves however they can," Meade said.
She added that credit card debt and interest rates have also increased, so debt payments are consuming a larger part of people's disposable income.
Social media can further worsen the problem. "The rise of social media may exacerbate feelings of inadequacy or FOMO (fear of missing out), driving individuals to spend in an attempt to keep up with perceived societal norms," Burskey said.
While understandable, spending to cope with financial stress can quickly lead to a downward spiral. In 2023, about one-third of Americans reported an increase in debt and nearly half said their savings balances had decreased.
Doom spending aims to alleviate stress, but it's a fleeting fix.
"It's crucial to cultivate mindfulness and self-awareness regarding spending triggers.
Identifying the underlying emotions driving impulsive purchases can help individuals develop healthier coping mechanisms," Burskey said.
You can also consider automating certain behaviors so you don't have to rely on your willpower month after month.
"Automate your bill payments, savings and/or investments," Meade said. For example, you can set up direct deposit so a portion of your paycheck goes directly into a savings account each pay period before you even see it.
Next, consider how you can stay active and entertained without spending much money.
"What worked for my family has been a focus on the free," Clint McCalla, a certified financial planner at MEIRA Wealth in Austin, Texas, said in an email. He recommended taking advantage of community libraries, going on walks or to a park, listening to music, reading, watching long-form videos on YouTube about things you enjoy and playing games at home.
Spending money on yourself and things you enjoy is a healthy part of any budget. It can become a problem, however, if your spending gets out of control or isn't part of a larger financial plan.
"By fostering financial literacy, promoting mindfulness and encouraging responsible spending habits, individuals can mitigate the negative impacts of stress-induced spending and work towards long-term financial well-being," Burskey said.
https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/spending/articles/what-is-doom-spending-and-how-can-you-avoid-it
M.Iossel shared this piece of campaign news:
Q&A September 28 in Warren, MI:
Question: What actions will you take to ensure that our jobs stay in America?
Trump: Years ago I was honored as the man of the year. Maybe 20 years ago. The fake news heard about it and said, it never happened…
*
HEZBOLLAH’S LEADER HASSAN NASRALLAH KILLED IN A RAID ON BEIRUT
Hassan Nasrallah, killed by Israel in a strike on southern Beirut, turned Hezbollah into one of the most powerful paramilitary forces in the Middle East.
His death caps a series of devastating blows for the group, already reeling from the humiliation of having its communications network comprehensively infiltrated, and suggests that one of Israel’s most formidable enemies is deeply wounded.
One of the founding members of the group formed four decades ago with the aid of Iran, Nasrallah ascended to the top of Hezbollah in 1992. He replaced his predecessor and mentor, Abbas Musawi, as secretary-general of Hezbollah, after he was killed by an Israeli helicopter strike.
Born to a grocer and his wife in Beirut in August 1960, Nasrallah spent his early adolescence under the shadow of Lebanon’s civil war.
His family were forced to flee the capital when the fighting erupted in 1975, moving further south to a village near the coastal city of Tyre.
One year later, Nasrallah moved to Iraq to attend a Shiite seminary. But he was swiftly expelled during the persecution of Shiite Muslims under Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s repressive regime – returning to Lebanon to study under his teacher, Musawi.
When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, responding to attacks by the Palestine Liberation Organization, Nasrallah rallied a group of fighters to resist the occupation – which would evolve into Hezbollah.
Israeli forces took almost half of Lebanon’s territory that year, and were held responsible for the killing of at least 17,000 people, according to reports and an Israeli inquiry into a massacre at a Beirut refugee camp.
TRANSFORMATION OF HEZBOLLAH
Known for his fiery speeches, the leader oversaw the transformation of Hezbollah, from a rag-tag group of militants in the 1980s to an organization that mounted a concerted campaign to drive out Israeli occupation in 2000.
The Lebanese militant group became a regional fighting force under Nasrallah. He led the growth of Hezbollah’s forces – his fighters and reservists are thought to number 100,000 – as well as the proliferation of its arsenal, which boasts long-range as well as medium and short-range missiles and drones.
Nasrallah commanded a dedicated following of hundreds of thousands of largely Shiite Muslims – in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. His influence in the Iran-backed so-called axis of resistance grew exponentially after the US assassinated Iran’s top general Qassem Soleimani, the architect of the region-wide axis, in 2020.
Hezbollah is the most robustly armed non-state group in the region – and is the most dominant political force in crisis-ridden Lebanon. Much of the Western world has designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
Days before he was killed, Nasrallah vowed to continue striking Israeli positions until Israel’s offensive in Gaza ends. “I say clearly: no matter the sacrifices, consequences, or future possibilities, the resistance in Lebanon will not stop supporting Gaza,” he said in a speech on September 19.
Fears of an all-out war peaked earlier this month, after Israel unleashed a wave of lethal explosions across Lebanon targeting Hezbollah fighters. Many of those killed were civilian bystanders.
In the days since, hundreds of thousands of people in Lebanon have been forced from their homes by Israeli attacks. In total, since October 7, more than 1,500 civilians in Lebanon have been killed and over 200,000 people displaced, according to the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Lebanese officials estimate the true number of displaced is closer to half a million.
Human rights advocates have fiercely condemned the violence – including UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who warned that Lebanon is suffering its bloodiest period “in a generation” and called on Israel and Hezbollah to “stop the killing and destruction.”
*
Israel didn’t notify the US about the strikes until the attack was underway, according to the US defense secretary. Sources say the lack of notice added to US frustrations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has sent mixed messages on a US-led ceasefire proposal and made a combative speech at the UN General Assembly earlier Friday.
Lebanon has recorded more than 100,000 people displaced by the recent conflict, but authorities said the true number is likely much higher. Up to half a million people are likely internally displaced, Lebanon’s health minister told CNN. Large flashes can be seen in southern Beirut, and the thuds of impacting Israeli missiles are echoing across the capital. The Israel Defense Forces is currently striking buildings in Beirut that it alleges are storing Hezbollah missiles.
The IDF is currently conducting targeted strikes on weapons belonging to the Hezbollah terrorist organization that were stored beneath civilian buildings in the area of Dahiyeh in Beirut,” the IDF said in a statement.
The strikes came about 90 minutes after the IDF’s Arabic-language spokesperson issued a warning on X, formerly Twitter, for residents of several southern Beirut neighborhoods to leave the vicinity of buildings it identified on a map.
Nasrallah’s death will be viewed in Israel as a huge victory, but Iran’s supreme leader declares five days of mourning and says his death "will not go unavenged.”
Smoke rises from Israeli airstrikes in Beirut's southern suburbs, on Saturday, September 28, 2024
Reports from Al Jazeera indicate that alongside Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Abbas Nilfrushan, the commander of Iran's IRGC Quds Force in Lebanon, was also killed in the Israeli airstrike on Beirut. The attack involved more than 80 bombs, each weighing a ton, to target the bunker where Nasrallah was located. ~ DPR, Quora
Ian Thompson:
Excellent news, two more utterly worthless individuals go to meet their maker. Once upon a time Lebanon was a wonderful country, but thanks to these guys, and their followers, it’s wrecked.
*
Oriana: I was also struck by this statement from the CNN news: "Nasrallah had not been seen in public for years because of fears of being assassinated by Israel." Putin, Yahia Sinwar, Nasrallah . . . how awful that must feel to know that millions of people hate you and want you dead.
Breaking:
Israel eliminated Hassan Khalil Yassin this afternoon, who replaced Hassan Nasrallah hours ago!
This creates a historical record for the shortest tenure as the head of a terrorist organization!
*
Some people seem to be surprised that Israel is bombing targets in Lebanon.
TIMOTHY SNYDYER: THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION TOOK AMERICA BY SURPRISE
In autumn 1990, when I traveled to the Soviet Union, I was working on projects in economics, but that semester I was also taking graduate classes in history and had applied for a fellowship to continue those studies in a doctoral program. I liked history’s inexhaustibility—a surprise awaited in each new book, behind each half-understood event, within each new language. The past is full of wild possibilities that were actually realized, such as the Bolshevik Revolution, or the American one. The east European revolutions of 1989, unpredictable as they had been, made me wonder whether other surprises might be coming.
In Moscow in November 1990, history gave me a common language with Soviet scholars. We talked about the Russian economy in the late imperial years, before the revolution, and about the crash industrialization of the 1930s. I could agree with Soviet participants that the problem of transforming their planned economy into something else was not foreseen in textbook economics.
In the cold and drafty conference room, my mind wandering, I doodled little bells in the margins of my notes. In the Russian Empire, in 1591 and 1771, bells had been sentenced to Siberian exile, on the theory that they precipitated public gatherings. In 1510, after Moscow conquered the town of Pskov, the new rulers did away with the bell used to call public meetings.
I drew some manacles around the bells. In the Soviet Union, as I knew from my own research on Soviet monopoly, Pskov was where they made all the handcuffs. (In 2014 troops from Pskov invaded Ukraine; in 2022 they murdered civilians at Bucha.) The rest of the Soviet economy was similarly centralized: critical products were made in a few sites or even in a single factory. Natural gas and oil were also extracted and distributed in a very centralized way.
As an initial condition for a market economy, I was trying to say, monopoly was unpromising. Capitalism’s radical critics (Vladimir Lenin) and radical supporters (Friedrich Hayek) agreed that monopoly meant oppression. Markets are supposed to enable competition, spread information, and separate economics from politics. But what would happen when giant Soviet enterprises came into private hands?
Monopolists would seek to prevent competition, own media, and corner political power. Once the Soviet Union began to come apart (I was arguing), its industrial concentration would accelerate the process of disintegration, because locals who seized control of valuable assets would seek to protect their new holdings by trying to control new states.
So any shift to capitalism in the Soviet Union had to be understood as part of a longer political history, not as a clearing of the slate that would generate perfect markets. From the starting point of the Soviet reality around me in November 1990, laissez-faire was not going to lead to the right result. Oligarchy, rule by the very wealthy, is also an equilibrium. A heavy bell can just stay on the ground.
I don’t think I managed to get much of this across in Moscow: the huge meeting room turned all utterances into echoes; men in scarves shivered during the presentations; the secondhand cigarette smoke was uncannily warmer than the air.
No one was thinking much then about the non-Russian nations. Americans said “Russia” for the USSR and “Russians” for Soviet citizens. I was little better, though I knew the geography from studying military sites and big factories. Half of the population of the Soviet Union was not Russian, and a quarter of the territory was in the non-Russian republics.
The Russian republic itself was described as a federation because of its tremendous variety: it contained, for example, the Tatars, one of the largest Soviet nationalities. Ukraine was, after Russia, the second-largest in population. In Moscow, American conference participants saw the opera Mazepa, about the Ukrainian hetman and his break with Tsar Peter; during the intermission, the economists in the group asked the Russia hands whether Ukraine was a separate country. Not really, was the consensus.
Jet-lagged and reading at night for a college seminar on Marxism, I thought in Moscow about the uncanny similarity between the prophets of communism and the prophets of capitalism. Capitalists knew that communist societies would automatically right themselves once private property was restored, just as Marxists had once known that capitalist societies would automatically right themselves once private property was abolished. I felt the draw of the first view: Would it not be nice to simply start again, free of the past? But the appeal was just too similar to the confidence of Marx and Engels, or for that matter that of Lenin and Trotsky when the Soviet experiment began.
I worked as a student at the Center for Foreign Policy Development between spring 1989 and spring 1991, in Washington at Foreign Policy magazine in summer 1990, and in Washington again at the Institute for International Economics in the summer and autumn of 1991. I had a sense of the elite consensus between the end of communism in eastern Europe in late 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in late 1991. Very few of the wise heads expected either. The George H.W. Bush administration supported Gorbachev to the very last moment. U.S. policy was to hold the Soviet Union together. President Bush went to Kyiv on August 1, 1991, but only to urge Ukrainians not to declare independence.
On August 18, 1991, I went to bed early in my Georgetown sublet. I had worked all day on Russian economics and German language, then made a meal for some friends to celebrate my twenty-second birthday. A Russian friend awakened me with a telephone call: “Massive revolution!” He meant the coup attempt against Gorbachev that would be the beginning of the end of the USSR. Ukrainian communists declared the independence of their republic on August 24.
A month later, I finished my study of Soviet monopoly and departed for graduate study in history at Oxford. The formal dissolution of the USSR in December found me in Czechoslovakia. Right after New Year’s, I took the night train from Prague to Warsaw. When I presented a paper on Soviet monopoly in Vienna in April 1992, the economists from what had been the USSR now represented newly independent states.
As the Soviet Union came to an end, American anxiety yielded to an odd euphoria. Americans hadn’t expected revolution and disintegration. And yet many were now speaking with confidence about what must follow: a durable capitalist equilibrium would bring with it democracy and freedom.
In fairness, the better economists were concerned about structures. But negative freedom set the tone: once the barriers of Soviet central planning and state ownership were cleared away, only good things could follow. This odd confidence about the future was one reason I decided to study the past.
https://lithub.com/timothy-snyder-on-how-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-took-america-by-surprise/
*
PUTIN’S PARANOIA
(This is a repost, but I think we need to reminded again and again that Putin is not a normal, sane person.)
In a startling interview, Gleb Karakulov, a captain in Russia’s Federal Guard Service, has shed light on President Vladimir Putin’s increasingly erratic behavior.
This revelation comes from a man who was responsible for the Kremlin’s security and provided encrypted communications for the Russian leader during foreign trips.
Karakulov’s insights suggest a troubling portrait of a leader who is not just paranoid but perhaps detached from reality.
Last October, during a visit to Astana, Kazakhstan, Karakulov made a daring decision that would change his life forever.
After months of contemplation, he executed a plan to defect from Russia, bringing his wife and young child along for the journey.
His escape was meticulously orchestrated, allowing him to slip away unnoticed before boarding a flight to Istanbul.
This act of defection raises questions about the lengths individuals will go to distance themselves from what they perceive as a regime gone awry.
Karakulov’s motivations for leaving are stark.
He expressed a deep moral conflict over serving a leader he labeled a “war criminal,” citing the ongoing war in Ukraine as an act of genocide against its people.
The thought of his daughter growing up in a militarized, oppressive environment under Putin’s rule was simply unbearable for him.
His story is not just one of personal loss; it symbolizes a growing discontent among those within the Russian establishment.
What sets Karakulov’s defection apart from others is his high-ranking position within the Russian Special Services.
His departure marks one of the most significant defections from the Kremlin in recent history, offering a rare glimpse into the inner workings and mindset of Putin himself.
The revelations that emerged from this interview paint a picture of a leader increasingly isolated and fearful.
Among the most shocking details revealed was Putin’s extreme paranoia.
Karakulov described how, during his time in Kazakhstan, Putin insisted on using a secure communications line located in a bomb shelter.
This level of fear indicates a leader who believes threats are lurking around every corner, even in seemingly safe environments.
Such behavior raises alarms about his mental state and decision-making capabilities.
Further revelations include Putin’s practice of maintaining identical offices across various residences.
This strategy, aimed at confusing foreign intelligence agencies, underscores his deep-seated fears of assassination attempts.
The fact that he reportedly operates in an information vacuum, relying solely on a handful of trusted aides and state media, suggests a profound disconnect from the realities outside the Kremlin walls.
Putin’s reliance on state propaganda for his worldview is particularly concerning.
According to Karakulov, the Russian leader consumes news filtered through his intelligence services, which have proven unreliable.
This lack of access to unbiased information could explain his miscalculations regarding the Ukrainian conflict, including the flawed belief that Russian troops would be welcomed as liberators.
For years, analysts have speculated about Putin’s mental health, and Karakulov’s account adds weight to those concerns.
Observers note that Putin’s obsessive measures to protect himself from COVID-19 reflect a broader pattern of behavior that hints at a deteriorating psyche.
From requiring constant PCR testing for aides to imposing quarantine protocols on anyone who wishes to meet him, these actions speak volumes about his state of mind.
As a veteran journalist covering Russian affairs, the implications of Karakulov’s revelations are profound.
While many have suspected Putin’s grasp on reality has weakened, the details shared by this defector provide tangible evidence of a leader enveloped in fear and isolation.
It’s a stark reminder of how power can warp perception and lead to catastrophic decisions.
The question remains: what does this mean for the future of Russia and its role on the global stage?
With a leader so disconnected from reality, the potential for miscalculation grows exponentially.
As the world watches, the ramifications of Putin’s paranoia could extend far beyond Russia’s borders, affecting international relations and stability.
Karakulov’s defection is more than just a personal story; it’s a window into the psyche of a man who holds immense power yet seems increasingly unhinged.
As we digest these revelations, we must consider the implications for not just Russia, but for all of us living in a world where such leaders exist.
The unfolding drama is far from over, and its consequences may ripple through history for years to come.
https://celebrac.com/defectors-revelations-a-glimpse-into-putins-paranoia-and-isolation-2/
*
*
WAS THE SOVIET UNION A COMPLETE FAILURE?
Yes, it was. But in the sense as a scientific experimentation: of proof of concept of Marxism as theory applied to practice. In that sense it was a complete failure.
If we inspect the USSR in the sense of human achievement, it was not a total failure. USSR managed to eradicate illiteracy, raise the living standards of the population, industrialize the nation and create some of the best scientific achievements of the 20th century.
With perfect 20/20 hindsight, USSR was doomed from the start. It inherited the Czarist Russian state apparatus, which itself was the spiritual legacy of the Mongol Empire. It was a Medieval hodgepodge of absolutist monarchy combined with completely ossified bureaucracy, and it had proved astonishingly immune to any attempts to renew or renovate it. It can be safely said Czarist Russia was a 11th century Feudal state with 20th century violence technology.
The builders of the USSR were facing a hopeless task: to build a Communist, egalitarian and classless state on the ruins of the semi-feudal Czarist Russia. If the Czarist Russia was the spiritual heir of the Mongol Empire, then USSR was the spiritual heir of Czarist Russia. They inherited the same obstructive bureaucracy, the same ossified state apparatus, the same inflexible civil servant culture and the drunken, insolent and semi-illiterate nation. In the end, the “dictatorship of proletariat” became merely a dictatorship — with an estimated body count of 30 to 50 million innocent people.
Given to hindsight, it is amazing they did even that well.
If we discard the lies, propaganda, machinations and the falsified statistics — after all, we are dealing with a nation where the concept of “Potyomkin Village” comes from — the results of USSR leave a lot to be desired. Yet still the price was appallingly high — and whether Russia would have done better under a non-Czarist bourgeoisie rule is a question on itself. ~ Susanna Viljanen, Quora
Kaarlo von Freymann:
Dear Susanna, excellent posting. What you say about the situation in Russia in pre-revolution days is exactly what the members of my family said, though they would say that in a very low voice as they were afraid the Czar’s secret police would “liquidate” them. Ironically the Bolsheviks took care of that.
Johnny Potts:
Evolution not revolution - it’s the only way….
Anand:
The Russian Empire, Russian state, and 20th century as a whole would’ve been just fine, had it not been for LENIN!
I must say this: He did far worse damage than Hitler ever did. It’s not even close.
Ilya Taytslin:
Moreover, without Lenin, there wouldn’t be Hitler. Hitler gained allies because they thought he was a preferable alternative to Communism. Without Soviet Union to scare the hell out of German establishment, Hitler would have remained a nobody.
Oriana:
Before Lenin managed to persuade him to join the Bolsheviks, Trotsky said, “The dictatorship of the he proletariat can only mean the dictatorship over the proletariat.”
Doctor. Agan Babu:
I wonder how Finland, a country so close, became so progressive and the happiest in the world. Except the small population and cooperative spirit over generations due to the harsh weather? What’s the secret formula?
Ilya Taytslin:
Finns were never a part of Mongol Empire, and thus did not have 200 years of indoctrination in moral relativism. If this sounds gnomic, here is a detailed explanation of how Russia came to be the way it (also from Susanna):
Susanna Viljanen's answer to Is Putin a product of the Russian mentality and culture?
[Jukka Lukkari: Excellent analysis! I also want to add the old Finnish saying “ a Russian remains a Russian even after being fried in butter”.
In contrast, “even an old shoe sole is edible when fried in butter”]
Aeris:
The Soviet technological achievements were stolen German technology.
William Lebotschy:
The failure was the incorrect emphasis of the 5-year plans, and not allowing entrepreneurship.
Aaron Ngui:
No matter how one dresses it up, a pig in a dress is still a pig.
Thomas Holst:
The attacks are a great success for Ukraine
Russian ammunition depot
Russia is a lost country. A mafia organization disguised as a state. The Russian people live under the oppression of criminals.
Similar to how a mafia organization works, Russia is a totally corrupt and politically confused country, ruled by a megalomaniac sociopath who has killed or permanently disabled more than half a million of his own Russian soldiers and citizens.
No one is afraid of the Russian army anymore. The Ukrainian soldiers have shot down and blown up every type of weapon that the Russians have presented so far from their museum-like arsenal.
Three large Russian weapons arsenals have been destroyed in a short time in Russia. Massive explosions have been seen from space and residents in the surrounding area have been evacuated. Ukraine has said it attacked two of the facilities and indicated it also struck the third.
It is a remarkable result, says Joakim Paasikivi, ex.lieutenant colonel, Swedish army.
On Wednesday, a large ammunition depot exploded near Toropets in Russia's Tver region, about 45 miles from the Ukrainian border.
The explosion was registered as a minor earthquake and the heat signature was picked up by satellites in space.
The facility was completed in 2018 and was then described as state-of-the-art. Russia's deputy defense minister at the time stated during construction that each storage unit there had the capacity to store 240 tons of ammunition.
Ukraine's own drones were used
After the event, President Zelenskiy thanked "everyone involved" for what he described as an important result achieved with "inspiring precision", but without specifically mentioning the arsenal.
At the same time, Ukrainian intelligence sources told AP that the attack was carried out with around 100 of the country's self-made drones. Other sources told Ukrainska Pravda that the warehouse stored a variety of robots and artillery shells.
Residents evacuated
On Saturday, Ukraine struck another ammunition depot in the Tver region, this time at the nearby town of Oktyabrsky.
And this weekend, a warehouse was hit near Tikhoretsk in the Krasnodar region, southeast of Ukraine. The exact extent of the damage is unknown, but in films from the incident, a large ball of fire can be seen rising into the sky. Around 1,200 residents have been evacuated from the surrounding area.
"The object is one of the Russians' three largest ammunition depots and a key logistical location for the Russian troops," Ukraine's military writes on Telegram.
Recently, the country's defense chief Syrskyi stated that the Ukrainians today fire half as many artillery shells as the Russians. In that case, it would be a sharp increase compared to last year, when Russia was reportedly able to carry out up to ten times more artillery attacks than Ukraine.
However, Ukraine's disadvantage remains, not least because of the flow of weapons to Russia from North Korea and Iran. Ukraine's intelligence chief Budanov described the quantities as "crazy" the other week.
Dead Russian soldiers
Russian army in need of soldiers
The defense minister's reaction can be seen in light of the fact that the Russian army is in dire need of new soldiers. Just two days after Belousov's order came the news that Putin is expanding the Russian army by 180,000 soldiers.
Despite high soldier salaries, Russia has difficulty getting volunteers for the army. A recent review shows that significantly fewer want to go to war than the Russian side states. At the same time, Putin does not want to order a new mobilization. The last time he did so, his popularity numbers dropped to record lows.
For the Ministry of Defense, it remains to at least show externally that problems within the army are taken seriously. In this way, it is hoped that more people will dare to sign contracts.
Slava Ukraini!!!
*
NOTHING IS MORE MISTAKEN’ THAN TO SUGGEST RUSSIAN ECONOMY IS BEING RE-SOVIETIZED, INOZEMTSEV SAYS
Many in Russia and the West are now talking about the re-Sovietization of the Russian economy, “but nothing could be more mistaken,” Vladislav Inozemtsev says, except perhaps the notion that Moscow will be able to drive “the genie of a market economy” back into the bottle.
Russia today is a market economy albeit with significant state interference, the Russian economist says, but it is not like the Soviet one in a variety of key ways. And there is no chance that it could be restored anytime soon without costs neither the population nor the regime is prepared to pay.
Indeed, in economic terms as well as political ones, “the restoration of the USSR is impossible,” Inozemtsev continues. “The system which exists today in Russia is a completely new reality, not less dangerous than the Soviet, but incomprehensible for those who appeal only to analogies.”
To make his point, the economist discusses eight ways in which the Russian economy now is fundamentally different than the Soviet economy was in the past, providing detailed statistics in each case:
First and most obvious, “the Russian economy of the model of the 2020s is private and market while the Soviet one was and remained throughout its history state-owned and planned.”
Second, in Soviet times, the economy served first and foremost the needs of the state; now, it serves the consumer. As a result, people have a significantly higher standard of living.
Third, because of the focus on the consumer, the service sector of the Russian economy now is vastly larger than it was in Soviet times.
Fourth, the Russian economy is far more integrated into the world economy. Foreign trade in Soviet times amounted to seven percent of GDP. Now, despite sanctions, it amounts for 34 percent.
Fifth, vastly larger numbers of Russians now travel or even live abroad than did in Soviet times.
Sixth, inequality has increased dramatically and become a driver of growth.
Seventh, the Soviet economy was slow to use Russian scientific advances for development. That is still true, but the Russian economy rapidly integrates advances in other countries.
And eighth, vethe Soviet government spent a far larger share of GDP on the military than does the Russian one even at the time of the invasion of Ukraine, and the former one spent far more on foreign aid from which it got no returns than does the Russian one today. ~ Paul Goble
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/09/nothing-is-more-mistaken-than-to.html
*
PUTIN’S REGIME WILL COLLAPSE QUICKLY AND WITHOUT WARNING, SAYS A FREED DISSIDENT
Vladimir Kara-Murza
~ The last time I met Evgenia Kara-Murza, it was a grim day in early March. The timing couldn’t have been worse. As we spoke, Alexei Navalny’s coffin was being lowered into the frozen ground in a Moscow cemetery. Meanwhile Evgenia’s husband, Vladimir Kara-Murza, was still incarcerated in a Siberian prison cell almost identical to the one in the Arctic Circle in which Navalny had been found dead, presumed murdered.
The parallels were eerie. Because Vladimir, a journalist turned political activist, was not just also loathed and feared by the Kremlin and imprisoned on spurious charges, he’d also been poisoned – twice – targeted by the same FSB (Federal Security Service) unit that had poisoned Navalny.
The prospects were so grim and the news from Russia and Ukraine so unrelentingly depressing, it feels almost unimaginably miraculous six months later to see Evgenia walk into the lobby of a London hotel, this time with Vladimir right next to her. Six weeks ago, he was in a Siberian gulag. Today, he’s a free man on a trip to London with his wife and their youngest son, nine-year-old Daniel, the result of the largest prisoner exchange between Russian and the West since the Cold War.
I find myself suddenly overwhelmed by the sight of them together so I can’t begin to imagine how Evgenia is feeling. “I cry all the time,” she says. “And I make other people cry. Just when I speak, people start crying in the audience. I just seem to have that effect on people.” She’d been so exasperated when we’d last met, fresh from a meeting she’d waited two years to get with the foreign secretary with the steely demeanor of a woman who can’t afford to give up.
“There has been so much emotional trauma. I mean, let alone the fact that Vladimir was in prison in those horrible conditions and solitary confinement in Western Siberia, but I also had to deal with people who couldn’t really understand this. It’s so difficult for a person living in a normal democratic country to grasp what political repression is in the 21st century. They just couldn’t get it.”
Vladimir Kara-Murza with his wife Evgenia in London on 19 September 2024.
But then, it is difficult to grasp. What’s disorienting about Vladimir’s descriptions of the Siberian gulag is how familiar it is from the works of Solzhenitsyn and other writers of the Stalinist era – though for Kara-Murza, who studied history at Cambridge, this was a source of both incredulity and solace.
“I’m a historian, and one of the biggest areas of study has always been the Soviet dissidents. I made films about it. I’ve written about it extensively. I’ve known many of these people. And it’s sometimes said that every historian subconsciously dreams of personally experiencing the area of his or her study. If that’s true, you know, I’ve got my wish fully.
“I felt like I was living inside these books because it’s astonishing and shocking, and, frankly, very sad how, all these decades later, nothing has changed. Even the minutest details of what a prison cell is like, how the walk is organized, how prison guards speak to you, how the prison transportation works, everything is exactly the same.”
Though it was his knowledge of the system, gained from these Soviet memoirs, that enabled him to navigate the system. “I knew the rules. These Siberian prisons are notorious even by the standards of the Russian system for having rules for everything, every minute of every day, but I also knew that I had the right to these books, to the prison library, so they had to give them to me.”
For Evgenia too, there were models from the past. When her husband heaps praise on “this amazing woman” who helped keep his fate in the mind of western politicians, he compares her to the “Decembrist wives” of the early 19th century who followed their husbands to Siberia. But the shock of his sudden change in circumstances, and of the luck that ran out for Navalny who was intended to be part of the exchange, still hasn’t sunk in.
For his close friend, Bill Browder, the businessman and anti-corruption campaigner who lobbied tirelessly for Kara-Murza’s release, it’s “been such a gift. I was sure he was going to die in custody”. As did Kara-Murza.
“I was convinced I was going to die in prison. Sitting here, with you, a few hundred yards from the Palace of Westminster, it feels completely and utterly surreal. It’s too much. It’s too fast for the human mind to process. I’m sort of watching this film since the end of July. It’s a wonderful film, but it still doesn’t feel real.”
He talks about how, as he was taxiing down the runway of Vnukovo airport, the FSB agent sitting next to him told him to look out of the window because it would be the last time he’d see his country. “I just laughed in his face and said, ‘Look man, I’m a historian. I don’t only think, I don’t only believe, I know I will be back home and it’s going to be much quicker than you imagine.’”
Most people he met in the Russian prison system, “the police officers, prison officials, judges, prosecutors, they don’t believe in anything”. Most are not pathological sadists, he says, they were just doing a job. “But the Alpha Group, the FSB special unit that was escorting us, I saw ideological hatred. They believe in this stuff and that’s even scarier.”
Kara-Murza’s grasp of history underpins his certainty that Putin’s regime will collapse – quickly and without warning. “That’s how things happen in Russia. Both the Romanov empire in the early 20th century, and the Soviet regime at the end of the 20th century collapsed in three days. That’s not a metaphor, it was literally three days in both cases.” He believes passionately that the best chance of a free and democratic Russia and peace in Europe rests on Russia’s defeat in Ukraine.
“A lost war of aggression” has been the country’s greatest driver of political change, he says. Though it’s not just the Russian people, in his view, who need to take collective responsibility but western leaders too, who “for all these years were buying gas from Putin, inviting him to international summits, rolling out red carpets”.
He tells me he thinks the truth will out. “These guys keep meticulous records. When the end comes – and it will – the archives will open, we will find out about Trump and Marine Le Pen and your British guys too.”
Sitting in London, the money and reputation-laundering center of Putin’s empire, he laughs when I mention one of the more notorious figures of British political patronage, Evgeny Lebedev, the proprietor of the Independent and Evening Standard, son of KGB lieutenant colonel Alexander Lebedev.
“Is that the guy who’s Baron of Siberia?” he says. “I should meet him. I guess he represents me?”
Siberia, the land of Soviet-style gulags and British lords and one delighted former political prisoner walking out into the London sunshine with his wife and son, a small flickering light from the heart of Putin’s darkness. ~
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/22/putin-regime-will-collapse-without-warning-says-freed-gulag-dissident?CMP=share_btn_url
(My thanks to Violeta for the link to this article)
*
THEFT AND PATRIOTISM
patriotism class
A resident of the Archangelsk Region convicted of fraud and robbing children, returned from war and conducts lessons of patriotism in local public schools. As satirical writer Saltykov-Shchedrin said: "When people in Russia start talking about patriotism, remember: somewhere, something was stolen.”
No one ever went broke underestimating the obedient servility of the Russian people.
There was a popular, but brief outcry in the social networks after the Russian government raised the retirement age to exceed man’s average lifespan. In contrast, France had nationwide protests over the pension reform.
Russian senior officials assured: “There’s no money in the budget to pay pensions.”
This same government is now paying volunteers fantastic sums of money — millions of rubles — to fight in Ukraine.
“War spending must remain among the top priorities of the Russian budget,” Putin ordered in preparation for the budget draft for 2025.
The money for the retirees, it turns out, has been there all along but awaited a better use.
What about children? Putin presses women to turn a boom-boom into a baby boom. The Russian Church openly condemns women who haven’t given birth.
"If you didn't breastfeed, you're not a woman. It would have been better if you were a boy,” said Priest Andrei Tkachev. And what about nuns who took a vow of chastity? Church in Russia is serving Putin, not God.
State and church are inseparable, connected at the hip. You would expect they would drop some morsels to finance what Deputy Nina Ostanina dubbed a “Special Demographic Operation.”
The Family Affairs Committee stated that the cost of formula is over 2,000 rubles and many parents do not have enough money to feed their babies.
“Have you tried paying parents a couple of million like you pay contract soldiers who kill in Ukraine? We need to decide either denazification or formula.”
We need to decide whether the goal of the government is to pay people so they can eat and have children, or pay them to get themselves killed. Because the latter has been the priority for over two years.
The Russian state doesn’t pay decent pensions. They do not pay for baby formula. And yet they dish out trillions to the volunteers to fight their war.
They so flagrantly prioritize war because as long as they’re in the fight, they stay in power. Therefore, remaining in power is the top priority of the president and senior and junior officials. Pensioners, children, and their parents are distant second, third, fourth, etc.
And once we establish that the goal of continuing fighting the war in Ukraine is for Putin to remain in power rather than to serve public interests as prescribed by the Constitution, then why does the public even bother paying attention to what the state is telling them to do?
Well, the truth is they don’t. Birth rates are at an all-time low. Pensioners are in survival mode rummaging in dumpsters and buying expired foodstuff.
And yet despite hardships almost everyone with rare exceptions still believes in the greatness of Russia. This delusion of perceived grandeur is going to evaporate last. It is the invisible binding force that holds this huge country together. ~ Misha Firer, Quora
Dennis Shaughnessy:
Perhaps Putin is is looking to break Stalin's record for most Russians killed.
*
CHILDLESSNESS TO BECOME ILLEGAL IN RUSSIA
Senate Speaker Valentina Matvienko stated that "smart demographic policy" means that the state “prohibits childfree”, bans abortions and baby boxes, and introduces a tax on childlessness.
The Russian government intends to “ban childfree” in the same way they banned LGBT — the idea of childlessness will become illegal in Russia.
”’Childfree’ is an enemy project,” Matvienko insisted. “It’s an enemy ideology.”
Those speaking about not having kids in a positive way will face:
A fine of up to 100,000 ruble (USD $1,000) for individuals — or 10 times more for legal entities ($10,000) and suspension of activities for up to 3 months.
If the information was intended for minors, distributed via the Internet or the media, the fines will double.
If the information was made available both for minors and via the Internet — the fines are multiplied by 4 times.
In other words, a story about Jennifer Aniston could cost a Russian internet site USD $40,000 in fines and the site itself could be closed for 3 months if the story mentioned the fact that Aniston has no kids — as it could be viewed as “childfree propaganda”.
A court in the Tver region of Russia has already banned 3 accounts in the social network VKontakte (Russia’s analogue of Facebook) with memes about “childfree” and ordered to VK to block them.
The pages in question were:
“Childfree-HUMOR” with 126 subscribers;
“Childfree” with 42 subscribers;
“Childfree” with 18 subscribers.
The local prosecutor's office filed a lawsuit demanding for the accounts to be banned — and the court agreed. (And that’s before the “childfree propaganda” is officially banned in Russia!)
The Tver court concluded that the 3 accounts published information that "contradicts the goals and objectives of the current legislation and harms the morality of citizens.”
The court ruling states: "Access to the said information, which calls to not have family and kids ("childfree"), contradicts the current legislation.”
Recently, support of “traditional family values” was added to Russia’s legislation. The idea of not having kids, according to Tver’s court, contradicts this.
So, joking about “childfree” in Russia — and especially posting such jokes online — is now not only costly but also can be dangerous. Russian legislators already view LGBT as “extremism”, so nothing stops them adding “childfree” to the same list.
You just said today at a party that you don’t want to have kids because you want to first establish a career and buy a house — and tomorrow the local FSB is breaking your door at 6 am, because you are now a “dangerous extremist” — and they can get a bonus and promotion for “catching” you.
And the scary thing is — it’s not a joke.
~ Elena Gold, Quora
Jerzy Pawlak:
Hmm, Putin is inviting men of reproductive age to join the army and get killed —is this not a form of “childfree propaganda”? After all, if the man gets killed, he’ll be childfree…
Bruce Edwards:
Lebensborn in NaZi Russia. Heil Putler!
Elena Gold:
The Soviet Union had childless tax for men and women over 20 since 1944 (before the end of WW2). It was cancelled only in 1992 — after the USSR ceased to exist.
*
NEARLY A THIRD OF RUSSIANS AREN’T HAVING CHILDREN
A new survey by Moscow’s Higher School of Economics reported in Voprosy ekonomiki finds that nearly a third (30.6 percent) of Russians have decided to postpone or not have children at all because of the war in Ukraine, poverty, or unhappiness with Putin’s political course (t.me/moscowtimes_ru/25537).
That helps to explain why the number of children born during the first half of 2024 is far below that of the last pre-war year and in fact is now at the level this statistic was in 1999, the year before Vladimir Putin came to power. But tragically, independent demographer Aleksey Raksha says, Moscow seems intent on making the situation worse.
According to him, a draft law the Duma is considering that would require psychological counseling before a divorce could be granted even if both parties agree to that would have the effect of driving down the number of marriages and the birthrate as well (pointmedia.io/story/66e183a9dc48800406e0f4c6).
That is because such counseling would inevitably delay not only the granting of divorce by Russian courts but also the formation of new marriages likely to result in additional children. Raksha says that the experience of China confirms this but that Russian lawmakers are ignoring that and thus making further declines in the number of births likely.
According to another Russian demographer Dmitry Zakotyansky, the best way to boost the number of children born is not placing such limits on divorce but rather addressing problems of poverty, increasing the rights of women, and lowering the level of force and tension in society by changing the direction Russia is moving in.
The entirely reasonable focus on family values that Putin and others regularly talk about should not lead to the preservation of marriages “at any price,” he says. Instead, it should be about improving conditions within the family and the social and political environment in which Russian families currently live.
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/09/nearly-third-of-russians-arent-having.html
*
TOP REASONS FOR NOT HAVING CHILDREN (NOT JUST IN RUSSIA)
Lifestyle flexibility
Without the responsibilities of raising children, individuals have the freedom to pursue their passions, hobbies, and travel without the constraints of parenthood. This allows for greater flexibility in lifestyle choices and the ability to focus on personal growth.
Financial freedom
Raising children can be costly, and deciding not to have kids can alleviate financial burdens. Without the expenses of child-rearing, individuals can have more control over their finances, including savings, investments, and discretionary spending
Career advantage
Being childless by choice can provide more opportunities for career growth and advancement. Without the added responsibilities of raising children, individuals can devote more time to their professional endeavors, leading to potential career advancements.
Personal fulfillment
Looking at childfree celebrities, a lot of people are motivated to believe that parenthood is not the only path to fulfillment. Some individuals find fulfillment in other meaningful things beyond having children. Choosing to be childfree by choice allows individuals to focus on what brings them personal fulfillment and happiness.
Control over time
Raising children requires significant time and energy, and deciding not to have kids allows individuals to have more autonomy over their time.
For women not having children, this can lead to increased leisure time, self-care, and the ability to prioritize personal needs and interests.
Mental and emotional well-being
Parenthood comes with its share of stress, challenges, and sacrifices. Some individuals may like being childfree by choice to prioritize their mental and emotional well-being. This can allow for a healthier and more balanced lifestyle.
Environmental impact
Concerns about overpopulation and its impact on the environment can be a driving factor for some individuals for choosing childlessness. By opting to be childfree by choice, individuals can make a positive environmental impact and contribute to sustainability.
Health and wellness
Choosing not to have children can eliminate potential health risks and complications associated with pregnancy and childbirth, allowing individuals to prioritize their health and wellness.
Relationship focus
One of the prime benefits of not having kids is that you get a lot of time to pay attention to your partner and relationship.
By being childfree, individuals can focus on their romantic relationship or marriage. This can provide an opportunity to strengthen the bond with a partner and build a fulfilling childfree marriage.
Personal choice
It’s important to respect and honor individual choices when it comes to deciding not to have kids.
Parenthood is not the only measure of a fulfilling life, and accepting a childfree life can be a valid and fulfilling choice for those who make it.
Oriana:
It seems that American culture has changed greatly over the years in how people view children — definitely not as “bundles of joy.” “At least once a day I wish I could just flush them down the toilet,” a mother of two told me, fully aware that it had become normal and accepted to say that. "You haven't missed a thing, not a thing," another woman assured me in a passionate whisper.
I think the most balanced view I heard was “It’s the hardest thing in the world, but it’s also the most fulfilling.” But while “hardest thing in the world” can be immediately imagined in specifics, the fulfillment part remains abstract and hidden to non-parents. I almost miss the old-style automatic assumptions about the “joys of maternity.” And what happened to the phrase “the patter of little feet”? And the joke that "most accidents happen in bed"?
I think that what made the greatest difference is effective birth control and thus real choice. Decades ago, it was considered abnormal for a couple not to have children by choice. Now it’s simply a lifestyle option. Nevertheless, the debate on social media seems to be endless, with some people openly stating that they don’t like children, and some parents saying that they if they could do it again, they wouldn’t have children.
The social pressure to get married and have children is nothing compared to what it was in the past. There used to be a stigma about remaining unmarried — consider the word “spinster” and “old bachelor.” But getting married isn’t anywhere as frightening now because there is divorce.
There is no divorce from parenthood — especially motherhood. Once you re a mother, you are a mother forever. Adult children still have their demands.
It’s still difficult for many women to make that life-changing choice to have a child, especially if they don’t have the luxury of help, for instance supportive in-law’s who are available and willing to lend a hand, and/or affordable quality childcare — or at least a partner who is truly committed to helping with the chores, and actually enjoys spending time with the little ones. (To my relief, I personally have met a few men who said they enjoyed children. I’ve also met one man who seemed distressed about not finding a single woman — I think he meant an “educated woman,’ which makes a lot of difference — who wanted children.)
*
‘FRIENDSHIP OF THE PEOPLES’ ONE OF MANY MYTHS ABOUT SOVIET PAST WAITING TO BE DEBUNKED, MIROVICH SAYS
Myths about the Soviet past continue to circulate and even to grow, Maksim Mirovich says; but they are precisely that – myths – that have little basis in reality and mean that Russians today are inclined to think that the past was better than the present in small ways and large.
The Belarusian commentator lists seven such myths and then explains why each is false and is not worthy of being believed (mirovich.media/702048.html):
“The Soviet ice cream was the tastiest in the world. Russians to this day believe that Soviet ice cream was the tastiest in the world, but they forget two things: it didn’t have competitors in Soviet stores reducing the value of such assertions — and Soviet ice cream was produced according to American recipes and on American machinery that began to be imported into the USSR in 1936.
“There was No Crime in Soviet Times.” One might joke that theft will be less when there is less to steal, Mirovich says; but in fact the Soviet Union was near the top of all countries in terms of all kinds of crime including the most violent.
“The Soviet Union had Its Own Fashion Industry.” It did in the sense that it produced clothes, he says; but it didn’t in that all of its clothing was a ripoff from advertisements in the Burda catalogue.
“Soviet cars widely available.” That was true for the elite, but for everyone else, there typically was a wait of ten to 15 years. They weren’t well made and in most cases were copied off of American originals.
“The Soviet Union invented the mobile phone.” This is nonsense, Mirovich says. An American company did, but large numbers of Russians to this day believe otherwise and articles keep appearing making that assertion and even showing pictures of the Soviet “invention.”
“Everyone respected the Soviet Union.” Many people feared the Soviet Union, but the number who respected it was quite small. Most viewed it as an impoverished military power that could build nuclear weapons but not provide its people with indoor plumbing.
“In Soviet times, there was friendship of the peoples.” That is absolutely untrue. Interethnic hostility and anti-Semitism were widespread, and the official nationality registered in one’s passport often determined one’s life outcomes. In the military, ethnic groups formed up to defend themselves and attack others. This reflected the fact that “Armenians didn’t like Azerbaijanis, people from the Caucasus tried to subordinate Slavs to themselves, and everyone fraternally disliked Muscovites.” ~ Paul Goble
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2021/10/friendship-of-peoples-one-of-many-myths.html
*
HOW STALIN’S TIME ENDED SUGGESTS HOW PUTIN’S TIME WILL, TREBEYKO SAYS
One of the murkiest periods of Russian history, the last days of Stalin’s dictatorship and the year immediately following his death, was filled with developments that contain lessons for how any dictatorship may end, especially one that has gotten involved not only in a war against its own people but a war abroad, Nikita Trebeyko says.
In a discussion of that period, the Russian blogger provides details about that period and both suggests and implies that both Putin’s last years and the time immediately after his departure from the scene may feature many developments that will resemble what happened 70 years earlier (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=66E652C634246).
Among the many events of that now long-ago period he points to that may be echoed in the future three are especially instructive:
The death of Stalin led to the end of Stalinist terror but this did not stop immediately. Instead, the organs continued to operate by inertia, with more than 10,000 people arrested in the months after the dictator’s death — far fewer than before but not an insignificant number.
Many of the prison revolts that took place in 1953 happened because Stalin’s repression swept up into its net people with wartime experience who knew how to organize and fight even the most repressive of rulers.
After the death of Stalin, the main struggle was between those who identified with the state and those who identified with the party. In the future, it is likely to be between those who identify with the state apparatus Putin built and those who identify with the ideological machine that he created.
Obviously, much will be different; but as Trubeyko makes clear, certain continuities or perhaps better echoes are important. And they shouldn’t be neglected when one thinks about the future. ~ Paul Goble
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/09/how-stalins-time-ended-contains.html
*
SERIOUS SHORTAGES OF POLICEMEN AND PRISON GUARDS MAKE THE LIVES OF RUSSIANS LESS SAFE
Both the Interior Ministry and the Federal Penitentiary Service are suffering from serious shortages of personnel and the result is that Russians who need their help not only are not getting it but that the officers in both are turning to ever more repressive means to try to do their jobs, according to the Important Stories portal.
Russia is an increasingly repressive state not only because of Kremlin police but also because budgetary pressures mean that 20 percent of policemen positions at the interior ministry and a third of prison staff slots at the Federal Penitentiary Service are currently unfilled.
That means that there aren’t enough policemen to respond to calls for help or guards to prevent prisoner-on-prisoner violence in the country’s places of incarceration. Moreover, those employed in these capacities often use repressive means to do their jobs and thus make Russian residents even less safe.
The situation is becoming worse not just because of budgetary stringencies but also because ever more of those who might be willing to become policemen or prison workers have chosen to go to fight in Ukraine where bonuses and pay are significantly higher, the Important Stories portal says.
Unless this situation is corrected, the Russian state may find itself with ever fewer policemen and prison guards, and the Russian people with ever fewer prospects for defending their lives and liberties. ~ Paul Goble
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/09/serious-shortages-of-policemen-and.html
*
FOR THE RUSSIAN WOUNDED, PROSTHETICS FROM BOTTLES AND TAPE
Oncology doctors from Russia report that the patients they send to specialized cancer clinics for chemotherapy are refused treatment, with the documents stating, “No medication available; recommend treatment to be done at the local clinic.”
The local clinics don’t have the chemotherapy medication either, because they don’t receive it for years — that’s why large cancer clinics had been built.
This basically means a death sentence for the patients, because they can’t afford to purchase the required medication themselves.
Putin is spending money on the war, as to dying cancer patients — well, too bad for them that they got sick at a wrong time in Russian history.
From the frontlines in Ukraine, Russian soldiers report that commanders send them to “meat assaults” to certain death, unless they pay tens of thousands of rubles in bribes.
Russians are pulling injured soldiers from hospitals and sending them to Ukraine — on crutches, barely patched up.
Russian generals are obviously required to send a certain number of men to the front, but recruiting cannon fodder in Russia is getting harder — despite the advertised payouts on signup reaching USD $24,000 (that’s the amount an average worker in Russia earns in 3 years), the inflow of volunteers have dried up.
A Russian soldier who lost his legs was fitted with prosthetics made from scrap — plastic bottles and tape — instead of modern prosthetics
In a desperate attempt to grab another 20–30 thousand men from pre-trial jails, the Russian Duma approved the law on allowing suspects in criminal cases to sign up for the war in Ukraine instead, so that the cases against them are closed.
The prisons where convicted criminals are kept have already been thoroughly cleaned up by military recruiters; many prisons were closed down as the number of convicted felons in Russia dropped to record lows.
Only in the battle of Bakhmut, which took Russians 9 months to capture, about 20,000 prisoners were killed. And that’s just 1 Ukrainian town. Not even a regional capital — in fact, Russia didn’t manage to take hold of any regional centers in 2.5 years of the full-scale invasion — initially, in the first week of the invasion, Russian troops captured Kherson — the center of Kherson region, but they had to flee in November 2022, under pressure from the Ukrainian troops.
Putin’s advisor Medinsky is now proposing to shorten the 11-year school course, arguing that “it’s unaffordable luxury” for kids to study that long.
Russian schools are now teaching kids “beginner military prep” from Grade 5.
The expenses for defense in 2025 comprise 40% of Russia’s budget, with another 30% of the budget classified. So, 70% of the state budget goes to war and hybrid war, it can be assumed.
Can Russia sustain it? Obviously, not.
Russia’s budget deficit exceeds projections year after year, covered from the “national welfare fund” — savings from the previous 20 years. With the current level of depletion, by the middle of next year, Russia’s national welfare fund will be empty.
Regarding Russia’s successes in Ukraine, the Russian troops lost more ground in the last 2 years than they captured — that’s the fact.
The war isn’t going well for Russia.
The internal situation isn’t going well for Putin.
Putin’s power structure has always been based on corruption, lies and violence — but these 3 pillars were supported by 3 different sets of people: oligarchs and officials were doing corruption, state media was doing lies, and the FSB, police and FSIN (dep. of corrections) were doing violence. Putin was presiding on top of that structure as an arbiter and guarantor of stability.
But now it’s all crumbling, with some barons like Ramzan Kadyrov having built all 3 power pillars of his own and not afraid to challenge Putin himself. That’s what happened when ‘Wagner’ boss Yevgeny Prigozhin gained prominence in 2022–2023 — he became a media mogul, chief of a private army and a billionaire in control of gold mines in Africa. It became such a worry for Putin, he decided to destroy Prigozhin — and nearly got destroyed himself, when Prigozhin started a mutiny to protect his empire.
Luckily for Putin, Prigozhin was a fool and fell for Putin’s “guarantees of safety”, and halted his Justice March towards Moscow.
But now, no one would believe Putin, after he killed Prigozhin. We also remember the silence of Putin’s top propagandists during Prigozhin’s mutiny — and the fact that no one stood up in Putin’s defense as ‘Wagner’ troops were driving towards Moscow on June 24, 2023, shooting down Russian military planes and helicopters on the way. One shouldn’t think for a second that Russians since then acquired a sudden wish to die for Putin in case of a palace coup.
The Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk region became a major blow for Putin and defeatist moods among the Russian elites are at all times high — the wealthy and powerful are really pissed off that they can no longer enjoy Europe and the States and are locked inside Russia, which is getting increasingly unsafe, with attacks by Ukrainian drones becoming part of daily life.
Mobilized soldiers who had been forcibly conscripted in September 2022 hoped that after 2 years of their “paying the debt to Motherland” they would be allowed to return home (about half of the mobilized already perished by now) — but instead, Putin ordered to increase the size of the Russian army by 180,000. This means, the mobilized won’t be allowed to go home, and they are furious about that.
According to sources, many mobilized intend to desert at the first opportunity. To prevent desertions and refusals to fight, commanders in the Russian army use beatings and torture, throw soldiers into dugout pits, handcuff them to trees — to be let out, the soldiers have to “pay a fine” to the commander. Tens of thousands of rubles again. The insubordinate aren’t arrested and sent to a military prison — if the punishment doesn’t produce results, they are simply shot and reported as KIA.
All these things aren’t isolated incidents — it’s the system.
The system of torture is the only thing propping up the Russian army.
Some Kremlin assets and useful idiots keep blabbing about “Russia’s invincibility” — but the Russian military can’t even squeeze out Ukrainian troops from the territory of Russia for already 7 weeks. The whole “mighty” Russian war machine can’t get it done.
Imagine Mexico invading Arizona — and the USA army unable to get the Mexican troops out for 1.5 months.
These are the facts.
Putin won’t be the one who decides “enough is enough” and orders Russian troops to march home — he’s just too obsessed with Ukraine, it’s maniacal delusion.
There is a chance that it could be a coup backed by Russian elites that removes Putin and ends the war — but most likely, it will be the Ukrainian army that will put an end to that.
Stay tuned. ~ Elena Gold, Quora
Zaak OConnan:
“…arguing that “it’s unaffordable luxury” for kids to study that long.” Cannon fodder doesn’t need that much education! [Oriana: The Nazis also opposed "too much education."]
Tom F:
I have no doubt Russia is depleting itself of men, equipment and supplies at a rate it can no longer sustain in the long-term. Unfortunately, Ukraine is also suffering large losses, despite their efforts at hiding the figures. I think all the optimistic coverage of Russia’s high losses are making the west too complacent. Russia can’t last much longer, but Ukraine may not last long either.
The West needs to rapidly ramp up its support of Ukraine to give solid path to victory. Ukraine doesn’t have much time.
David Mitchell:
Most chemotherapy is priced exorbitantly. It’s a weird game. Normally any drug with the list of side effects chemo has would die instantly. Chemo gets a free ride there. Most of the agents with the exceptions of the antibodies which are tough to make are cheap to make. The demand if anything is growing for chemo. All we ask is that it works.
Chemo is a big thing in pharmaceutics for this reason. Big volume. Low cost — antibodies excepted. Growing demand. Massive tolerance of side effects. Massive subsidies for research.
From a government point of view closed prisons money saved. Cancer patients — economically past it. Savings on drugs — more money in the till.
This is all very sad.
Jim Is Fascinated by You:
Elena, congrats on a very timely review of factors that crystallize the view that Russia in its present form can not endure three more years and even one more full year will be difficult. When the current regime falls, it might take only 3 weeks, as security forces, the FSB and the major oligarchs allied with them struggle to create the next one. Sadly, it is unclear that it will be much better than what Russia has, but at least the losses will be stemmed.
Paul Daniel Tudor:
Most Russians have no clue what is really going on: amount of money left, actual human life cost, how many criminals are set free, what long term impacts this will have. And the cherry on top are the seized Ukrainian lands, factories and power plants, seized European planes, companies and assets, the help they receive from nations like Iran, N Korea and China.
Russia was as ready as can be for this war: first with all the assets of former Soviet Union, followed by multiple successful deals with Europe for energy that went on for decades, followed by multiple money sources in Africa. It takes a very long time to deplete all these sources not to mention the European efforts barely made a dent in oil&gas revenues due to the price increase.
As Putin may be depleting all young people from regions far from Moscow and other mercenaries from N.Korea, Syria, other middle easterners, and Africans. The Russian state can live well without them for a long time, it will all come crushing down on them in the future but the current effort can last decades. He has learned how to deal with grieving mothers by making life so hard that they have no choice but to sacrifice even the last remaining son or even husband, he is literally holding all his people hostages and out of 140 Million, the losses barely scratch the surface. The wounded are sent to war not to help, but to die and alleviate the costs of their care.
While we may have foolishly considered Russia a democratic European state, it was never that. People outside of the 2 main cities always lived a miserable life. The war gives them purpose, a small cash infusion that makes them feel there is actually hope for the first time, finally a chance for some families to finally afford the most modest of dreams: a clothes washing machine.
When you see no prospect of a decent life for your children, when you constantly wonder what you will have to put on the table as food, the decision to risk your life in the war comes much easier, either to finally afford medical treatment or basic shelter for your offspring, etc. The illusion works!! And as long as many of them die trying it is even better, if nobody has the will to fight the system even for the promised compensation, it is a win-win for Putler.
Sorry to be gloomy, but I doubt there is any will or even chance for a coup, the oligarchs, just like Prigozhin, are kept well in check by threatening their assets and families. If the army could not keep communications secured from the Ukrainians, how would you expect a coup to be organized when systematically all the people have be trained, threatened and convinced to becomes spies for the state, if you just as much as gather 7 people in a house for 2 hours for a chat that is not an otherwise obvious gathering for a drunken celebration, 90% of neighbors will report the gathering for points and rewards from the state. The FSB is overloaded with surveillance of their own people, something Putin considers a bigger threat than the Ukrainians attacks, as indeed, even if Ukraine reaches as close as 30km to Moscow, this is a smaller threat to him than an internal coup would be.
Puler regime is also finally learning (the absolut hardest way) from his mistakes: doing what they are good at: mines, static defences, pounding civilians to spend Ukraine's supplies on air defence, disinformation campaigns to scare europeans and his own people, it is all working for him, despite many, oh so many flaws in his army and supply chains.
He will fail in getting Trump into office again, but he did it once and came close a second time, he will be close again. This shows how easily people in the west were manipulated and influenced by his propaganda and nukes saber rattling. This all translates into not giving Ukraine the air power and long range weapons they need, not to mention the fact the West should have sent troops to Ukraine from day 1 to defend their interests.
Putler may lose overall in the end, but since 2014 all he has done is win hundreds of small victories. He controls a huge chunk of Ukraine with slim to none prospects to lose this territory, he has his warm water port, the oil and gas prices are up making him earn even during the war the same amount of money, he has his oligarchs weakened overall by their ties cut to the west and assets seized both outside and some inside russia, making them easier to control, his people thoroughly brainwashed and kept in poverty limits all will to revolt.
Russia has lost a lot and will continue losing, their future is compromised beyond repair, but Putler is winning and it seems the West is not willing to do any real thing about it. He will die of old age without even noticing the effects of his folly, as his people are forced to lie to him that all is great even when it is not.
Nuclear fallout in Eastern Europe would still be worse than all this, but at the same time we seem to gradually reach the same level of devastation anyway, and in current scenario, allowing Putler unrealistic gains without any major consequence for his regime is emboldening Iran, other middle easterners, N.Korea, even China in the future when they might get a less balanced leader and other nations that seek expansion and may already have nukes we are not aware of. The lasting message is that if you threaten to use nukes you can subdue smaller nations at will,
The context has an underlying issue that is ALWAYS ignored here: climate change and proceeds of slavery. All the weaker nations (global south, most of Asia, middle east, all outside of western influence) see the west (maybe rightfully so) as gross hypocrites: they enjoyed growth on the backs of others, filled the atmosphere with CO2 beyond any acceptable levels and now have the audacity to demand everyone jump straight to green energy when they can barely manage themselves to shift while having all their resources at their disposal for centuries.
In this context, the axes of evil as seen by the West easily see themselves as doing the right thing, pushed not only by greed and lack of any morality, but mainly by a feeling of having no other choice, there is no real plan to save everyone, there is barely a plan to save the former slave owners and even that may fail as well.
Now if we get real a bit, there is no doubt humanity will not survive if the balance of power ever shifts, if the combined power, skills and technology of the West cannot save us, nobody can, but this saving does not include everyone! It barely includes (if even successful) most of the West's sphere of influence and major trading partners. The rest are doomed by design.
With great power comes responsibility, and our current great powers are failing and constantly push the problem down the road. If no major change comes, we might soon look back at the russo-ukrainian war as a minor problem, while in fact it is a big problem and distraction from what we really should have started acting on decades ago.
Enjoy whatever is left of good life. It was never sustainable and foolishly assumed to last or even get better. It will all come crushing down soon.
Geoffrey Barans:
Putin did try to test an ICBM, and it exploded.
Way back, I saw it brought up that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is likely to not be well maintained if the quality of its army is anything to go by.
Even the most optimistic predictions I saw did not predict anything as embarrassing as a Russian ballistic missile exploding when Putin tried to use one as a warning.
I still have no idea what Putin intends to do about the mess the Ukrainians are making on his own border. If there was any chance of a threat of a nuclear strike scaring them away, it is gone now.
Russian folks living in polluted cities, with failing infrastructure are still convinced that everything is going according to the plan.
According to them, there is no crisis in Russia, yes they cannot talk about the war openly, and if they do, it must only be nationalistic point of view. Yes inflation is higher, yes stores have fewer European goods. Yes there is more Russophobia in the world…
Yet, they are convinced that Russia is fighting a just war to protect great Russia. Yet they are convinced that we who live in the West are under propaganda that life is terrible in Russia.
Lifestyle in Russia is not much worse to their low aspirations. They still have food and alcohol. There are now many open positions at workplaces, and they can have better jobs. They can gain promotion faster, and get the respect in the workplace due to labor shortages.
Russian live in dystopian world. Western values don’t apply to them. Life has never been particularly easy for Russians, but they overcame greater hardships in the early 90s, after the Soviet collapse.
They are convinced, that Putin is the best president to keep them from going back.
Truth and reality have nothing to do with their perception!
Russian way of living is not unique. Many people in 2nd or 3rd world countries live on a fraction of what western countries enjoy. Majority don’t mind that lifestyle.
residential buildings in Moscow
*
DID RUSSIA EVER HAVE A GOOD LEADER?
Russia has only had three presidents so far: Yeltsin, Putin, and Medvedev. They all got their own (serious) problems, so I’m not even sure who’s better.
I believe the best leader that has ever “happened” to Russia in the past 100 years (and possibly more) was Gorbachev.
He inherited a collapsing state with a dysfunctional economy and handled it the best he could. The USSR didn’t explode like Yugoslavia and Russia went on to experience a brief (and chaotic) period of transitioning to a liberal democracy—which unfortunately was terribly managed. But Gorbachev’s heart was in the right place.
Prior to him, there were a few leaders of whatever iterations of Russia that did great things but weren’t all that great overall. Catherine the Great and Peter the Great were both deserving their titles (especially Peter). He modernized Russia from a backwards feudal state to something on par with the greatest empires of Europe and introduced science to Russia. The current Russian state is built upon what he made.
WHAT ABOUT YELTSIN?
Boris Yeltsin is considered the worst president of Russia. Many considered him a disgrace to Russia. That view is not only of the left or right, many liberals like to not talk about Yeltsin and the 90’s. So why is he so hated?
The collapse of the Soviet Union. Many blame Yeltsin for the collapse of the Union. Many saw it as a catastrophe which destroyed Russia’s geopolitical influence. Yeltsin was seen as the man to blame.
Failed economic reforms: Yeltsin’s program of privatization and reforms really failed. Privatization created a elite of oligarchs and a corrupt system controlled by the oligarchs. The failed economic reforms lead to hunger and poverty.
The laughing stock of the world: Yeltsin was also a famous drunk. As I said earlier he was seen as a disgrace. He created an image of a drunk, which still lives today.
Western puppet: Many saw Yeltsin as a Western puppet, especially when he cozied up to Bill Clinton who was seen as the number 1 enemy in the mindset of Russians.
All this created the current situation. Russians desperately wanted a strong man. And they got him. Life did get better though now we’re again falling into poverty.
Mikhail:
Yeltsin was a stupid alcoholic traitor. The worst ruler of Russia in 1000 years. Gorbachev was just stupid, and Putin is also a corrupt traitor.
Doug Voss:
When Bill Clinton went to Russia to meet Vladimir Putin in June of 2000, 6 months before Clinton left office, Clinton didn’t know what to make of Putin. Putin did have his swagger, and macho persona. For instance he sat in his chair like he was a tough guy, bad boy, gone rogue. Putin slouched in his chair a little bit, and sat with his legs apart, and used his steely blue eyes to look at Clinton.
Clinton went to see Boris Yeltsin and said “Putin needs to be watched. He is hard core and not like you Boris.” Boris was friendly to the USA, as was Gorby for sure. Putin was in a job he knew little about how to go about it, but used his KGB persona to for ce things to get done, and turned into a over the top, tough guy, like he ran the mafia with impunity.
Yeltsin came to Washington DC to see Clinton as well. We in the USA never knew this for years, but Yeltsin was staying at Blair House across the street from the White House. Yeltsin was drunk and staggering around, then went out into the middle of Pennsylvania Ave. looking for a way to get a pizza, and was wearing nothing but his undershorts.
There are videos on youtube of Yeltsin staggering up the lectern to speak, slurring his speeches, through his term of being the 1st President of the Russian Federation. He was a fun-loving guy, but was in over his head during the tumultuous 90s.
Dima Vorobiev:
Everyone who mattered seemed to hate the USSR in December 1991. Even President Putin who calls its demise “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century” has not been able to spin a decent story of how he defended the USSR from its nationalist enemies.
The decay of Communist ideology and the rise of Russian ethnic nationalism made the mass of lower- and middle-level Party and Soviet functionaries regard the Central Asian and Transcaucasian dependencies as expensive parasitic appendages on the body of the Russian nation.
Decades before the dissolution of the USSR, Alexander Solzhenitsyn raised his voice for Russia’s “revival”, based on a union of three brotherly peoples, Russians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians. This was also Boris Yeltsin’s initial, widely popular idea. The Commonwealth of Independent States was intended to make it work on a new, anti-Communist, market-based foundation.
Three factors brought about the dissolution of the USSR by the Belavezha Accords:
A de-facto bankruptcy of the Communist project. The Soviet state no longer had the money to support our police, army and the security services. No wonder not a single military or security officer took up his arms to defend the Soviet cause.
An unprecedented surge of nationalism around the country, including its most radical, violent forms. It started with the Jeltoqsan uprising in 1986, continued in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and by 1991 became an irreversible force.
Personal rivalry between Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Because of the two factors above, Gorbachev saw his power crumble in a matter of months. Yeltsin just yanked the Kremlin from under him with a single pen stroke in Belavezha.
After 1991, it turned out that the dream of Slavic Union was a stillborn idea. Ukraine and Belorussia immediately started a gradual drift away from us. Impoverished and disorganized, Russia in the 1990s didn’t have either money or military muscle to turn around this process.
In the photo below, one of the voting stations of the March ’91 referendum for the continuing existence of the Soviet Union. Under a strict supervision of the Communist rulers, a strong majority voted in favor of the USSR. A few months later, the ethnic elites got rid of the Communist rule and totally ignored its results.
Alexey Zubkov:
Just to add to your point about ignoring the referendum to preserve the USSR. Ukraine held an independence referendum on 1 December 1991, only months after the all-union one and voted overwhelmingly yes, including Crimea and what is now a breakaway Donbass. Of course, the Soviet mourners now claim without any substantive evidence that the all-union referendum was democratic and fair, while the Ukrainian rigged and fake.
*
LEVEL OF THE CASPIAN SEA KEEPS DECREASING
Russian Experts Concede Caspian Water Level Falling 69 Centimeters a Year, a Trend that Threatens Moscow’s Economic and Military Use of that Sea
The decline in the water level of the Caspian Sea is now increasing so fast that Russian experts now say that it will soon threaten the ability of littoral states to make use of it for economic development or military purposes. Their acknowledgements represent a turnabout and follows a statement by Vladimir Putin at the end of August.
At that time, the Kremlin leader expressed concern about the decline in the water levels of the Caspian and the impact of that development on the region and urged all littorals states to work together to slow down or reverse that trend (windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/08/putin-worried-about-falling-water.html).
That led to the convention of a meeting of Russian Federation experts in Astrakhan, some of whom had played down this problem, but now are now sounding the alarm.
Participants declared that the water level of the Caspian is declining by 69 centimeters (27 inches a year) and that this has left 22,000 square kilometers of former seabed exposed as dry land, an area equal in size to Israel and Slovenia. As a result, at least the northern portion of the sea, the one adjoining Russia, “could be lost” as far as economic or military use is concerned.
Both the experts and even more Putin and his entourage are likely especially concerned because falling water levels in the Caspian are in part a reflection of falling water levels in the Volga and the Volga-Don Canal, which have allowed Moscow to move ships from the Caspian Sea to the Sea of Azov to be used against Ukraine.
Worries about the siltification of these waterways have already led to expanded and international dredging operations and to calls for an alternative canal from the Caspian to the Black Sea.
In the short term, more dredging is likely because constructing a new canal would be enormously expensive and take many years, money and time that the Putin regime almost certainly does not have enough of. Other countries, including China and Iran, may become more involved, something that would transform the geopolitics of that region and beyond.
http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/09/russian-experts-concede-caspian-water.html
*
WHY AGNOSTICISM MAKES THE MOST SENSE
In my 20s, I had a friend who was brilliant, charming, Ivy-educated and rich, heir to a family fortune. I’ll call him Gallagher. He could do anything he wanted. He experimented, dabbling in neuroscience, law, philosophy and other fields. But he was so critical, so picky, that he never settled on a career. Nothing was good enough for him. He never found love for the same reason. He also disparaged his friends’ choices, so much so that he alienated us. He ended up bitter and alone. At least that’s my guess. I haven’t spoken to Gallagher in decades.
There is such a thing as being too picky, especially when it comes to things like work, love and nourishment (even the pickiest eater has to eat something). That’s the lesson I gleaned from Gallagher. But when it comes to answers to big mysteries, most of us aren’t picky enough. We settle on answers for bad reasons, for example, because our parents, priests or professors believe it. We think we need to believe something, but actually we don’t. We can, and should, decide that no answers are good enough. We should be agnostics.
Some people confuse agnosticism (not knowing) with apathy (not caring). Take Francis Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Institutes of Health. He is a devout Christian, who believes that Jesus performed miracles, died for our sins and rose from the dead. In his 2006 bestseller The Language of God, Collins calls agnosticism a “cop-out.” When I interviewed him, I told him I am an agnostic and objected to “cop-out.”
Collins apologized. “That was a put-down that should not apply to earnest agnostics who have considered the evidence and still don’t find an answer,” he said. “I was reacting to the agnosticism I see in the scientific community, which has not been arrived at by a careful examination of the evidence.” I have examined the evidence for Christianity, and I find it unconvincing. I’m not convinced by any scientific creation stories, either, such as those that depict our cosmos as a bubble in an oceanic “multiverse.”
People I admire fault me for being too skeptical. One is the late religious philosopher Huston Smith, who called me “convictionally impaired.” Another is megapundit Robert Wright, an old friend, with whom I’ve often argued about evolutionary psychology and Buddhism. Wright once asked me in exasperation, “Don’t you believe anything?”
Actually, I believe lots of things, for example, that war is bad and should be abolished.
But when it comes to theories about ultimate reality, I’m with Voltaire. “Doubt is not a pleasant condition,” Voltaire said, “but certainty is an absurd one.” Doubt protects us from dogmatism, which can easily morph into fanaticism and what William James calls a “premature closing of our accounts with reality.” Below I defend agnosticism as a stance toward the existence of God, interpretations of quantum mechanics and theories of consciousness. When considering alleged answers to these three riddles, we should be as picky as my old friend Gallagher.
Why do we exist? The answer, according to the major monotheistic religions, including the Catholic faith in which I was raised, is that an all-powerful, supernatural entity created us. This deity loves us, as a human father loves his children, and wants us to behave in a certain way. If we’re good, He’ll reward us. If we’re bad, He’ll punish us. (I use the pronoun “He” because most scriptures describe God as male.)
My main objection to this explanation of reality is the problem of evil. A casual glance at human history, and at the world today, reveals enormous suffering and injustice. If God loves us and is omnipotent, why is life so horrific for so many people? A standard response to this question is that God gave us free will; we can choose to be bad as well as good.
The late, great physicist Steven Weinberg, an atheist, who died in July 2021, slaps down the free will argument in his book Dreams of a Final Theory. Noting that Nazis killed many of his relatives in the Holocaust, Weinberg asks: Did millions of Jews have to die so the Nazis could exercise their free will? That doesn’t seem fair. And what about kids who get cancer? Are we supposed to think that cancer cells have free will?
On the other hand, life isn’t always hellish. We experience love, friendship, adventure and heartbreaking beauty. Could all this really come from random collisions of particles? Even Weinberg concedes that life sometimes seems “more beautiful than strictly necessary.” If the problem of evil prevents me from believing in a loving God, then the problem of beauty keeps me from being an atheist like Weinberg. Hence, agnosticism.
Quantum mechanics is science’s most precise, powerful theory of reality. It has predicted countless experiments, spawned countless applications. The trouble is, physicists and philosophers disagree over what it means, that is, what it says about how the world works. Many physicists—most, probably—adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation, advanced by Danish physicist Niels Bohr. But that is a kind of anti-interpretation, which says physicists should not try to make sense of quantum mechanics; they should “shut up and calculate,” as physicist David Mermin once put it.
Philosopher Tim Maudlin deplores this situation. In his 2019 book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory, he points out that several interpretations of quantum mechanics describe in detail how the world works. These include the GRW model proposed by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber; the pilot-wave theory of David Bohm; and the many-worlds hypothesis of Hugh Everett. But here’s the irony: Maudlin is so scrupulous in pointing out the flaws of these interpretations that he reinforces my skepticism. They all seem hopelessly kludgy and preposterous.
Maudlin does not examine interpretations that recast quantum mechanics as a theory about information. For positive perspectives on information-based interpretations, check out Beyond Weird by journalist Philip Ball and The Ascent of Information by astrobiologist Caleb Scharf. But to my mind, information-based takes on quantum mechanics are even less plausible than the interpretations that Maudlin scrutinizes. The concept of information makes no sense without conscious beings to send, receive and act upon the information.
Introducing consciousness into physics undermines its claim to objectivity. Moreover, as far as we know, consciousness arises only in certain organisms that have existed for a brief period here on Earth. So how can quantum mechanics, if it’s a theory of information rather than matter and energy, apply to the entire cosmos since the big bang? Information-based theories of physics seem like a throwback to geocentrism, which assumed the universe revolves around us. Given the problems with all interpretations of quantum mechanics, agnosticism, again, strikes me as a sensible stance.
The debate over consciousness is even more fractious than the debate over quantum mechanics. How does matter make a mind? A few decades ago, a consensus seemed to be emerging. Philosopher Daniel Dennett, in his cockily titled Consciousness Explained, asserted that consciousness clearly emerges from neural processes, such as electrochemical pulses in the brain. Francis Crick and Christof Koch proposed that consciousness is generated by networks of neurons oscillating in synchrony.
Gradually, this consensus collapsed, as empirical evidence for neural theories of consciousness failed to materialize. As I point out in my recent book Mind-Body Problems, there are now a dizzying variety of theories of consciousness. Christof Koch has thrown his weight behind integrated information theory, which holds that consciousness might be a property of all matter, not just brains. This theory suffers from the same problems as information-based theories of quantum mechanics. Theorists such as Roger Penrose, who won last year’s Nobel Prize in Physics, have conjectured that quantum effects underpin consciousness, but this theory is even more lacking in evidence than integrated information theory.
Researchers cannot even agree on what form a theory of consciousness should take. Should it be a philosophical treatise? A purely mathematical model? A gigantic algorithm, perhaps based on Bayesian computation? Should it borrow concepts from Buddhism, such as anatta, the doctrine of no self? All of the above? None of the above? Consensus seems farther away than ever.
And that’s a good thing. We should be open-minded about our minds.
So, what’s the difference, if any, between me and Gallagher, my former friend? I like to think it’s a matter of style. Gallagher scorned the choices of others. He resembled one of those mean-spirited atheists who revile the faithful for their beliefs. I try not to be dogmatic in my disbelief, and to be sympathetic toward those who, like Francis Collins, have found answers that work for them. Also, I get a kick out of inventive theories of everything, such as John Wheeler’s “it from bit” and Freeman Dyson’s principle of maximum diversity, even if I can’t embrace them.
I’m definitely a skeptic. I doubt we’ll ever know whether God exists, what quantum mechanics means, how matter makes mind. These three puzzles, I suspect, are different aspects of a single, impenetrable mystery at the heart of things. But one of the pleasures of agnosticism—perhaps the greatest pleasure—is that I can keep looking for answers and hoping that a revelation awaits just over the horizon.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-god-quantum-mechanics-and-consciousness-have-in-common?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
*
THE CAUSE OF BEETHOVEN’S AILMENTS
High levels of lead detected in authenticated locks of Ludwig van Beethoven’s hair suggest that the composer had lead poisoning, which may have contributed to ailments he endured over the course of his life, including deafness, according to new research.
In addition to hearing loss, the famed classical composer had recurring gastrointestinal complaints throughout his life, experienced two attacks of jaundice and faced severe liver disease.
It is believed that Beethoven died from liver and kidney disease at age 56. But the process of understanding what caused his many health problems has been a much more complicated puzzle, one that even Beethoven himself hoped doctors could eventually solve.
The composer expressed his wish that his ailments be studied and shared so “as far as possible at least the world will be reconciled to me after my death.”
An international team of researchers set out nearly a decade ago to partially fulfill Beethoven’s wish by studying locks of his hair. Using DNA analysis, the team determined which ones truly belonged to the composer and which were fraudulent, and sequenced Beethoven’s genome by analyzing his authenticated locks.
The findings, published in a March 2023 report, revealed that Beethoven had significant genetic risk factors for liver disease and a hepatitis B infection before his death. But the results didn’t provide any insights into the underlying causes of his deafness, which began in his 20s, or his gastrointestinal issues.
Beethoven’s genome was made publicly available, inviting researchers around the world to investigate lingering questions about Beethoven’s health.
Meanwhile, scientists continue to figuratively go over the authenticated locks of Beethoven’s hair with a fine-tooth comb, teasing out surprising insights.
In addition to high concentrations of lead, the latest findings showed arsenic and mercury that remain trapped in the composer’s strands nearly 200 years after his death, according to a new letter published Monday in the journal Clinical Chemistry. And the insights could provide new windows not only into understanding Beethoven’s chronic health ailments, but the complicated nuances of his life as a composer.
A tangled web reveals lead
Christian Reiter, now the retired deputy director of the Center of Forensic Medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, had previously studied the Hiller Lock, a sample of hair long attributed to Beethoven. He authored and published a 2007 paper after determining there were high levels of lead in the hair, and suggested the lead may have contributed to the composer’s deafness, and potentially his death.
In a twist, the 2023 genomic sequencing study uncovered that the Hiller Lock did not belong to Beethoven, and it was actually a hair sample from a woman. But at the time the researchers did not test Beethoven’s newly authenticated hair samples for lead.
So the question remained: Did Beethoven have lead poisoning?
A separate research team used two different methods to search for evidence of lead in two authenticated locks of Beethoven’s hair: the Bermann lock, estimated to have been cut between late 1820 and March 1827, and the Halm-Thayer lock, which Beethoven hand-delivered to pianist Anton Halm in April 1826.
It was very common during Beethoven’s lifetime for people to collect and keep locks of hair from loved ones or famous people, said William Meredith, Beethoven scholar and study coauthor of the 2023 genomic analysis and the latest study.
The newer research detected incredibly high levels of lead in both samples: 64 times the expected level in the Bermann Lock, and 95 times the expected level in the Halm-Thayer lock.
“These levels are considered as lead poisoning,” said lead study author Nader Rifai, professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School and director of clinical chemistry at Boston Children’s Hospital. “If you walk into any emergency room in the United States with these levels, you will be admitted immediately and you will undergo chelation therapy.”
Elevated lead levels such as those detected in Beethoven’s hair “are commonly associated with gastrointestinal and renal ailments and decreased hearing but are not considered high enough to be the sole cause of death,” the study authors wrote. Because the researchers don’t have hair samples from earlier in Beethoven’s life, it’s impossible to understand when the lead poisoning started, Meredith said.
The study authors do not believe the lead poisoning was solely responsible for Beethoven’s death or deafness. But he experienced symptoms of lead poisoning throughout his life, including hearing loss, muscle cramps and renal abnormalities, Rifai said.
Both locks also contained increased levels of arsenic and mercury, about 13 to 14 times the expected amount, according to the study.
Study coauthor Paul Jannetto, associate professor in the department of laboratory medicine and pathology and laboratory director at the Mayo Clinic, carried out the analysis of the samples and said he’d never seen such high lead levels.
But Rifai said he saw comparable lead levels when he conducted research in two villages in Ecuador where the main trade is to glaze tiles with lead from batteries. The villagers experienced mental delays, hearing loss and hematological abnormalities, which are common in lead poisoning, he said.
Currently, there is no understanding of the average amount of lead in the bodies of people like Beethoven who were living in Vienna during the 19th century, Rifai said.
He said he hopes to access old locks of hair people have from their families to determine the baseline level of the population at the time since there is no documentation.
But how did Beethoven end up with so much lead, as well as arsenic and mercury, in his body? The substances likely accumulated over decades of the composer’s life through food and drink, Rifai said.
Beethoven was known to favor wine, sometimes drinking a bottle a day, and he drank plumbed wine. A common practice dating back at least 2,000 years, the creation of plumbed wine involves adding lead acetate as a sweetener and preservative, Rifai said. At the time, lead was also used in glassmaking to give glassware a more clear and appealing appearance.
Beethoven also loved to eat fish, and at the time, the Danube River was a great source of industry, meaning waste ended up in the same river that was a source of fish caught for consumption — and that fish likely contained arsenic and mercury, Rifai said.
The report marks the first time lead levels have been established for Beethoven and points to another possible cause for Beethoven’s kidney failure in the months before his death and the liver failure he experienced at the end of his life, Meredith said.
Lead poisoning appears to be the fourth factor that contributed to his liver failure, apart from genes that predisposed Beethoven toward liver disease, his hepatitis B infection and his penchant for drinking alcohol, Meredith said.
The composer wrote a letter to his brothers in 1802 asking that his doctor, Johann Adam Schmidt, determine and share the nature of his “illness” once Beethoven died. The letter is known as the Heiligenstadt Testament.
But the documents kept by Beethoven’s favorite doctor, who died 18 years before his patient, have been lost.
In the 1802 letter to his brothers, Beethoven admitted how hopeless he felt as a music composer struggling with hearing loss, but his work kept him from taking his own life. He said he didn’t want to leave “before I had produced all the works that I felt the urge to compose.”
“People say, ‘the music is the music, why do we need to know about any of this stuff?’ But in Beethoven’s life, there is a connection between his suffering and the music,” Meredith said.
May 7 marked the 200th anniversary of the first performance of Beethoven’s famed Ninth Symphony, largely regarded as his greatest work and his final symphony. Completely deaf at the time, Beethoven was onstage as one of the conductors, but the orchestra was instructed to follow the conducting of Beethoven’s friend, who was also onstage. The concert marked one of the most triumphant moments in Beethoven’s life, and the female singers turned him to face the crowd as they clapped and waved their handkerchiefs at the beloved musician, Meredith said.
Three days later, Beethoven gathered with three of his friends who helped him organize the concert. What first seemed like a dinner to reward his friends actually resulted in Beethoven yelling and accusing them of cheating him out of money.
The outburst was ironic, considering that Beethoven had been inspired as he worked on the Ninth Symphony in part by Friedrich Schiller’s poem “Ode to Joy,” and the concluding themes of the symphony include living in peace and harmony with one another, Meredith said. But above one sketch Beethoven did for the Ninth Symphony, he included the French word for despair.
“When you look back at his life, it’s a life that is so full of despair. He went deaf. He never found a woman that he could settle down to love. He had terrible abdominal problems ever since he was a child. He really had a hard time sustaining relationships with people,” Meredith said. “If you understand how much pain he was in and the paranoia he experienced from the deafness, it makes that whole story of the Ninth Symphony much more complex.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/world/beethoven-lead-poisoning-scn
Greenpa:
Lead was everywhere then. Three possible sources not mentioned in the article — old water pipes could be almost entirely lead; roofs were often covered in lead sheets, and "rainwater" caught in a rain barrel; prized for its "softness", used for washing, could be full of lead; and printed material was often full of lead from the metal type used, the dust from the print work getting around in unexpected ways. Benjamin Franklin tried to raise awareness of the dangers of lead type; but was mostly ignored. The master printers were quite aware- but this was how they made their living, and young apprentices won't pay attention to you, as we all know. Did Beethoven get freshly printed copies of his music— and then handle the barely dry material, licking his fingers to turn it?
Too many different ways. We know where he is buried; he himself would almost certainly be in favor of a brief disinterment, allowing the forensics experts to acquire a few teeth to examine. The teeth can tell us far more than the hair these days- including things like what you ate when you were 15 years old, and where you lived then. He wanted us to know. Let's find out.
Greg in Texas:
Pewter was also higher in lead and probably had pewter plates, etc ... And a tea kettle. Wine from a pewter goblet was probably any pub's normal fare. All day long, taking in heavy metals from an era of coal fired smelting mixing metals inefficiently and leaving all the wares leaching into food, on the hands etc. Probably also salt and spice grinders made of pewter, adding a little poison to every snort or flavor added.
Coal ash itself leaves behind heavy metals.
Oriana:
It isn’t really so long ago that lead (tetraethyl lead) was added to gasoline to combat the “knocking” problem in combustion engine. Leaded gasoline was sold in various parts of the world until 1992. All the while the harmfulness of lead was well known, and parents were warned about not exposing their children to lead-containing paint.
Ethyl gasoline gas station
*
OBESITY AND ALZHEIMER’S
Leptin, a hormone that helps with weight control, also plays a role in normal cognition.
Leptin resistance occurs when the hormone is secreted by fat cells but unavailable for use by the body.
Leptin resistance causes further weight gain in obesity as well as cognitive changes in the brain.
Reduced availability of leptin, a hormone that helps you maintain a healthy weight by regulating your appetite and helping to maintain energy balance, has been found to play a role in the development of late-life dementia, according to a study published by a group of American and international researchers in the September 2024 issue of Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
Hormone resistance
The job of all hormones is to signal instructions or send messages through the bloodstream to specific receptors on targeted cells throughout the body. Once recognized by the receptors, the message is relayed and the cell reacts accordingly. When the hormone can’t bind with its receptors due to defects or some other interference with signal transmission, a condition known as hormone resistance develops, and the message is not received or acted upon by its target cells. The result can be high levels of leptin circulating in the bloodstream with no place to land.
In addition to helping control how much food you eat by sending signals of hunger and fullness, leptin normally plays roles in brain cell development, structure, plasticity, and protection. When obesity is associated with leptin resistance due to a high-fat diet, aging, or genetic inheritance, it can also lead to diminished leptin signaling in areas of the brain associated with cognitive function.
The connection to cognition
As researchers have discovered in recent years, leptin’s extensive biological activities have the capacity to alter many brain functions related not only to weight control but also to learning, memory, motivation, and other cognitive functions. Normal leptin levels are associated with maintaining the integrity of white matter in the brain and lowering the risk of impaired cognition and dementia. When obesity is a result of leptin resistance, all of these cognitive functions can be negatively impacted.
Previous studies of elderly people have already established this road from obesity to late-life cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia due to leptin resistance. This latest study looked more closely at fat tissue in the body that produces leptin, with researchers concluding that compromised leptin resistance associated with obesity in middle-aged people can also increase the risk of cognitive impairment later in life, suggesting there might also be a pathway to prevention or lowered risk in younger men and women.
What you can do
What’s good for your heart is good for your brain, according to the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. That includes staying fit and maintaining weight within a healthy range by remaining active and eating a heart-healthy, low-fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables and limited in red meat, processed foods, fried foods, sugar, and salt. That also includes getting enough sleep, staying socially connected, keeping your mind stimulated and challenged, understanding the effects of different types of medications, limiting alcohol, and quitting smoking, if necessary. It also means getting annual health screenings and check-ups to monitor conditions that can have a negative impact on your brain, including obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cravings/202409/what-does-obesity-have-to-do-with-alzheimers-disease
Oriana:
What particularly interests me is the the role of a “precipitating injury.” It can be a concussion. It can be an infection. Fortunately the public is becoming more aware about how to prevent either, though I remember how the idea of mandatory helmets met surprising opposition. As for opposition to vaccines, once seen as mostly as beneficial and even life-saving, no one needs reminding how vehement the rejection of science in general can be, and not just by the religious.
Dietary intake of sugar has been found to increase the risk of dementia https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10921393/
What is also interesting is that exercise seems to be the strongest protective factor. Exercise has multiple benefits. One of them is lower blood sugar, which is also said to be the best predictor of longevity.
Aside from exercise, another factor both lowers blood sugar and helps prevent dementia: a low-carbohydrate diet. It really is possible to live without bread and other baked foods, especially if you are aware that you are protecting your brain from a horrible and (as of now) incurable disease.
Coconut oil or MCT oil (extracted from coconut oil) help to make low-carb diet easy by preventing hunger, among other things. A high-carbo diet may keep you constantly hungry and needing to eat every two hours; a low-carb diet allows you to go for up to six hours without a meal (especially if your meal contains sufficient fat).
Add to this the almost miraculous action of an inexpensive supplement called berberine. It lowers blood sugar, and modifies the cholesterol profile. I suspect that berberine is the most potent prevention we have against dementia. Exercise is also tremendously important. Note that both lower blood sugar.
*
ending on beauty:
Violeta shared these gorgeous indigo flowers, citing Matisse: "A certain blue enters your soul."
No comments:
Post a Comment