ben song
2.2K posts




The stars are out for Game 4 at Madison Square Garden 🤩

Do you know who this woman is?



Get the fuck out of here. Are you for real? This cannot be tolerated.



The Nazis fundamentally wanted a Europe free of Jewry, this is nonarguable. And to propagate the idea that the Holocaust was merely a matter of logistical issues is to deny the severity of the Shoah, which killed most of my family’s members. However, the Nazis did not have a plan for genocide in the style of the final solution on the day Hitler became chancellor. Did they seek to sequester German Jewry, to force them out, to expropriate their wealth and to expose Germany’s Jews to random acts of violence? Absolutely. But genocide was another matter; it’s complicated and requires mass compliance. I don’t hold on to the extreme functionalist notion that the Holocaust was purely contingent on WWII, that’s revisionism, but when you read the minutes of Wannsee (which, it should be noted, wasn’t the conference where they agreed on doing the Holocaust, but just to confirm across the Third Reich’s bureaucracy how they’d go about it), that the Nazis felt exasperated with their “Jewish problem” and saw systematic, industrial-scale slaughter as the most cost-effective option. I’d say that the Nazis had given up on just expelling Jewry by 1939 but committed to fully annihilating them by 1941



My piece argues that collapsing global fertility may be an inevitable consequence of laudable developments -- modern medicine, economic development, and women's autonomy. My normative view is that preserving these advances is more important than averting rapid depopulation. But a massive contraction in global population will be a crisis for all affected societies and governments. Entire regions will become ghost towns. With an inverted population structure, the small minority of prime-age workers will shoulder the burdens of supporting an increasingly large elderly population, likely yielding resentment and political backlash. And of course, if sustained indefinitely, below-replacement fertility rates would result in human extinction. So, I think rapid depopulation will be experienced as a social crisis. And a great many people will be harmed by it. But I agree that it is difficult to avoid this outcome without constraining autonomy in unacceptable ways. Perhaps, we'll develop artificial wombs and Jetsons-style robo nannies, the burdens of child-rearing will plummet, and more people will opt into procreation without coercion. But I wouldn't count it




Jared Kushner says countries that normalize with Israel through the Abraham Accords will be rewarded with INVESTMENT, MONEY, and political backing. He says new “economic packages” are being prepared to deepen normalization and pull more countries into the accords, while highlighting Morocco as a model and Syria as a possible next target. Kushner openly frames alignment with Israel as a gateway to WEALTH, STATUS, and foreign investment.



iran war the biggest foreign policy mistake of trump’s presidency. but nothing close to putin’s decision to invade ukraine. that’s a failure of truly epic proportions. increasingly worries me, given that putin is not given to admitting mistakes.








It always astonishes me how there is virtually ZERO public debate - or even public awareness - in Europe about the decisions that will most shape ordinary people's lives. These days, the EU is drafting a new anti-China legal framework where - quite literally - the more affordable and competitive Chinese products are, the more illegal they'd become. You'd think EU citizens would want to be informed about such things - as it couldn't be more consequential for their prosperity. Yet I bet virtually no EU citizen is even aware of it, beyond a vague sense that there is some sort of trade dispute going on. So what's going on exactly? It all centers around a new legal instrument the EU is drafting called the "overcapacity instrument" (euobserver.com/218003/china-t…). First of all, the very notion of "overcapacity" is pretty ridiculous to begin with, especially the way it's being defined by the EU, as it basically means being competitive enough to export. By this definition of "overcapacity," pretty much every European industry that's ever run a trade surplus - German cars, French wine, Italian fashion - has been guilty of "overcapacity." I'm not even exaggerating: if you read this study by the EU Parliament on "Industrial overcapacities, with a focus on China" (europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes…), they define "overcapacity" as building more capacity than your domestic market can absorb. So the moment you build capacity to export abroad, you're in "overcapacity." Utterly ridiculous. And what this "overcapacity instrument" is about is creating a permanent legal mechanism for the EU to block Chinese competition across whole sectors of the economy, if they happen to be in "overcapacity." In effect, this means that if China is competitive globally in a given sector in such a way that it exports a lot, that's proof of overcapacity, and legally it'd mean that the entire sector can be restricted from the EU market. Which means it really, factually, is a legal framework where the more affordable and competitive your products are, the more illegal they become. Which is a CRAZY economic concept! 🤦♂️ Please note that it's different from the anti-subsidy legal instrument, which the EU has already put in place in 2023 (the "Foreign Subsidies Regulation": competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/foreign-subsid…). This "overcapacity instrument" would be above and beyond this: it wouldn't even matter if a particular sector was subsidized by the Chinese government or not, the mere fact of its competitiveness in exports would be grounds for restrictions in the EU. It doesn't take a genius to understand how badly this could impact everyday people: this is European consumers being forced to pay more for worse products by law, so that uncompetitive European firms don't have to improve. Politicians frame it as avoiding a "China shock 2.0" but really this is choosing an even steeper self-inflicted decline than is already the case, where EU citizens would subsidize mediocre EU companies that would have even less pressure to catch up. It's a hidden tax: subsidies for uncompetitive firms paid by consumers instead of governments, which in turn makes them less incentivized to become competitive. The first "China shock" did de-industrialize Europe somewhat, but at least it made things cheaper for European consumers. If this becomes Europe's response to a second "China shock" not only it'd make everything more expensive but it'd do nothing for EU industry: you don't become competitive by banning the competition... Look at China itself: the way it industrialized was NOT by banning Western firms but on the contrary by welcoming them strategically and learning from them. You learn to compete by... competing, duh! What I find most shocking in all of this isn't even the policy itself - you can make arguments for and against protectionism, and reasonable people can disagree. What's shocking is that virtually no European media outlet is explaining any of this to the public. This is unarguably one of the single most consequential economic decisions the EU will make this decade, affecting the price of everything, and it's being drafted in near-total silence. No newspaper is running the headline "EU plans to make Chinese goods illegal if they're too affordable" - even though that's essentially what's happening. But that's what you call a "democracy" with "freedom of expression" these days apparently...



@policytensor I am fascinated how military power is so on the minds of the white monkey crowd cheering China on, are they really traitors or just making the buck in China. And apparently they are all experts of the military. True genius here. So please, Anusar, tell us your military experience







