Mud, Blood & Ghosts: Populism, Eugenics, and Spiritualism in the American West is the newest book by University of Colorado professor and poet Julie Carr.
Her book traces her great grandpa, Omer Madison Kem (1855-1942), from the populist movement’s 1880s roots in the Great Plains states through today’s strong political convictions.
Carr’s family background shows populism’s racial origins. The author drew connections between U.S. agrarian populism, spiritualism, and eugenics to help readers understand populism’s tendency toward racism and exclusion and why so many of these topics are still an issue today.
Ultimately asking whether we can embrace the Populists’ profound hopes for a just economy while rejecting their barriers around who was considered fully human enough to be part of this dreamed society.
Populism returned to American politics, including Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
The author’s interest in the homestead act and populist movement inspired the work. I’m recounting the tale of populism’s egalitarian shift. Their slogan was equality and no special favors. Carr says he wants to aggressively push eugenics.
Omer Madison Kem was a spiritualist and eugenicist who represented Nebraska in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1891 to 1897. Kem then raised cattle and produce in Montrose, Colorado. In 1907, he was re-elected to the Colorado House of Representatives.
Omer Kem moved in Cottage Grove, Oregon, in 1908 and founded Cottage Grove Electric Co. with his son-in-law Charles Shinn, which Mountain States Power eventually sold to PacifiCorp. Cottage Grove’s first electric utility burned timber industry wood chips and sawdust to generate electricity.
Kem’s obituary called him a “colorful figure” who supported Lane County’s partition to establish Nesmith County. He spoke forcefully and campaigned for populism.
He had eight children, including Claude J. Kem, who rebuilt the property on 6th and Main, now Delight, adding to Cottage Grove’s historic skyline. Claude was a druggist in Lebanon, Oregon, and Cottage Grove, where he took over The Modern Pharmacy in 1910. In 1923, he rebuilt the corner into the Omer Apartments, named after his father, which housed The Cottage Grove Sentinel, The Grey Goose Tea Room, and Kem’s for Drugs.
Portland’s McMenamins Kennedy Theater will host Carr’s book talk on Sept. 25. Oregon Historical Society co-sponsors. June 9 is her virtual event. Authors have praised the writer.
Julie Carr brings her great-grandfather’s radical Populist homesteading heritage to life. She depicts his survival as a chaotic mix of hardscrabble tenacity, spiritual longings, eugenic ideals, and racial supremacy. Carr confronts violence, silence, and memory in the politically combustible present as she poignantly reconstructs an extremely personal history. Eugenic Nation author Alexandra Minna Stern states.
Carr’s unusual writing style highlights her great-grandfather’s experiences. Her style and tone express the complexity of human interactions and stretch traditional literature. The 356-page history book has 26 photos.
Carr writes about hardships, dreams, and goals. Carr won the 2011 National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship for Poetry for her literary work. Her writing will continue to inspire and reflect our complicated reality.
Business organizations worry that political radicalism and divisiveness threaten Alberta’s economy as the election campaign winds down.
“Social and political divisiveness worries us. “It seems to have crept into North American politics,” Business Council of Alberta president Adam Legge said in an interview.
“The future of this province depends on us getting our act together and being united from a policy standpoint, public standpoint, and economic standpoint.”
Legge’s non-partisan group includes several of Alberta’s major company CEOs. It hasn’t backed any candidate or party for Monday’s Alberta election.
The non-partisan Calgary Chamber of Commerce has not either. However, Chamber president and CEO Deborah Yedlin shared Legge’s concern about increased us-against-them language this election year.
Our members seek teamwork. Yedlin said they want more problem-solving collaboration.
“Our members don’t want to see the fighting, divisiveness.”
Alberta’s election comes at a moment of economic and budgetary strength not seen since before the 2015 oil price crisis.
The province’s leading oil and gas sector is profiting from commodity prices that, while down from last year’s record highs, remain profitable. Unemployment is at a seven-year low.
Business organizations claim the province also has a labor deficit, skills and training gap, and stagnating salaries. Climate change is putting pressure on Alberta’s oil-and-gas business to decarbonize.
Yedlin said Alberta firms could lead the world in hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. She stated no time to spend.
“We need to seize the moment in terms of what’s possible, going forward,” she remarked.
“This requires deliberate, visible provincial and federal support.”
Danielle Smith’s United Conservative Party and Rachel Notley’s New Democrats have made economic commitments.
The UCP has proposed a $1,200 non-refundable tax credit for skilled tradespeople and professionals who move to the province to work in fields with labor shortages, while the NDP has promised to eliminate the province’s small business tax and create a capital investment tax credit for emerging sectors.
The UCP has touted its introduction of the Alberta Petrochemical Program and the Alberta Hydrogen Roadmap, while the NDP has pledged to create a regulatory “fast pass” to help businesses with good records build well-developed projects faster.
Hyper-partisanship has overshadowed economic problems during the campaign. Tax policy and economic diversification have been overshadowed by incendiary statements about vaccinations, convoys, socialism, and genuine conservatives.
“Unfortunately this election has really been focused a lot on personality and not enough on the policy side of things,” said Alberta Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Shauna Feth.
“If we could get back to really focusing on policy, maybe we could reduce some of that divisiveness.”
Legge said political divisiveness discourages capital investment and labor recruitment. He said whomever becomes premier next week must establish “alignment with Albertans” and party alignment.
“Albertans are centrists. “Families want a good future, and that’s what we need to focus on,” he added.
“The next premier will need to decide whether we’re going to keep fighting or whether we’re going to seize the opportunities.”
The previous 15 years have seen political turmoil. New “grand coalitions” of erstwhile foes are one sign of this.
The most recent grand coalition, between former rivals Gerb-SDS and Change Continues-Democratic Bulgaria (CC-DB) in Bulgaria, is becoming more common in Central and Southeast Europe.
In 2021, Latvia and Romania formed alliances that have since collapsed.
In all three nations, far-right parties have grown since the Great Recession, bringing together once-bitter enemies. Latvia, Romania, and Bulgaria experienced external challenges like the epidemic and Ukraine conflict.
Needing partners
After two years of political turmoil and five general elections, Bulgaria formed a grand alliance.
Most elections produced no government. The November 2021 election, which elected a regular administration led by Change Continues’ Kiril Petkov, was the most successful.
At a May 22 news conference, CC-DB’s Nikolai Denkov and Gerb’s Mariya Gabriel were named the new government’s rotating prime ministers. Gabriel will serve as foreign minister and deputy prime minister for nine months under Denkov. Gabriel will become prime minister and Denkov her deputy for the second nine months.
Denkov stated CC-DB will propose a constitutional and judiciary reform government. The government must also submit a 2023 budget with a 3%-of-GDP deficit and meet all eurozone and Schengen rules.
The future government’s six objectives include machine voting and a way to elect state regulators whose terms have ended. The government should also pass security service independence laws.
Uneasy alliance
CC-DB declined to form a coalition with Gerb, while Gerb declared it would not support a CC-DB administration.
The two alliances share many goals, including further EU integration with Schengen and eurozone membership, moving forward the 2023 budget, and reforms to unlock EU funds under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).
Before Russia invaded Ukraine, the two parties were on different sides of Bulgaria’s primary political divide: established parties vs. anti-corruption reformers.
After the Ukraine war, pro-Russian and pro-Western parties became the primary split. President Rumen Radev and Change Continues, which covertly transferred armaments to Ukraine in the war’s early days, fell out. Gerb and CC-DB appeared on the Western side.
After a decade of corruption scandals, CC-DB is wary about allying with Gerb. In recent years, Gerb leader and former prime minister Boyko Borissov’s misdeeds have been revealed in graphic detail.
After the sixth general election in two years, the two parties were under pressure to reach a settlement to avoid more fruitless elections. Without a contract, CC-DB was likely to lose support.
Political vacuums have economic effects too. Fitch said that protracted political uncertainty is hurting Bulgaria’s economy by slowing EU money absorption and RRF reforms.
Pandemic stress
Before the Ukraine conflict, Romania created its great alliance during the fourth wave of the pandemic, which affected the country hard owing to its poor vaccination coverage.
After the National Liberal Party (PNL)-reformist Union Save Romania (USR) government fell, the country faced its first snap election in decades. The PNL, PSD, and UDMR created a new government.
That assured leadership at a key time for the country, when the authorities needed to fight the epidemic and secure EU subsidies for post-crisis recovery.
Like in Bulgaria, the PNL’s nominee would become prime minister, then the PSD’s candidate would take over halfway through the government’s tenure. The coalition collapses soon before the transfer.
PSD leader Marcel Ciolacu has stopped discussions on a new government, citing the teachers’ strike. There is speculation that Prime Minister Nicolae Ciuca would quit.
From extremes
Grand coalitions are unusual in Central and Southeast Europe, although Austria has historically had them. Left and right mainstream parties often work together to keep far-left and far-right parties out of office.
Romania was one of the few countries in the region to form a grand coalition in 2008, when the Democratic Liberal Party (PDL), which would later merge into the PNL, and the PSD and Conservative Party ran together in the November 2008 general election. That partnership lasted 10 months, from December 2008 to October 2009.
Recently, Estonia’s first female prime minister, Reform Party leader Kaja Kallas, led a grand coalition of the liberal Reform Party and the populist Centre Party. After Centre’s original alliance with the radical right-wing Ekre party failed, a partnership was created during a pandemic wave, as in Romania.
The coalition, formed in January 2021, collapsed as Russia invaded Ukraine a year later. This increased Kallas’ popularity and allowed her to exclude Centre from the alliance in June 2022, hinting the ethnic Russian-backed party was untrustworthy due to its former association with Putin’s United Russia party.
The Reform-Centre alliance struggled with growing tensions throughout its 16 months in office. The free market Reform party considered Centre’s proposals to help Estonians cope with the cost of living problems, such as enhanced child support, as populist attempts to regain popularity. It collapsed when the Centre Party and EKRE voted against an Estonian-language preschool education measure authorized by the cabinet by consensus.
Winners and losses
Any party risks an alliance with a political opponent.
Kallas won the Reform-Kallas experiment in Estonia, but not always. Monthly surveys in late 2021 showed Centre Party leader Juri Ratas gaining support while Kallas losing it.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, Kallas’ strong anti-Russian stance improved Reform’s support, while Centre’s prior close ties to Putin’s United Russia Party hurt it.
The members of Romania’s grand coalition are jockeying for position to avoid being blamed for failing to support teachers (two-thirds of whom are on strike for higher pay) or pension reform. Neither party wants to address the issues before the 2024 presidential and legislative elections.
Bulgaria’s governing agenda might clean up Gerb’s dirty reputation.
“Working with the ethnic-Turk Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS) and the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) would likely hurt Gerb’s popularity ahead of local elections in autumn,” Teneo analysts said earlier this month. “Such a coalition would harm all participants, particularly Gerb and the BSP,” according to Teneo.
CC-DB reformers were apprehensive of allying with Gerb, believing the party’s previous corruption would stain them. Bulgaria’s chief prosecutor Ivan Geshev held a news conference to reveal Gerb leader Borissov’s damning phone and text chats while government discussions were underway.
Their coalition showed desperation; voters were supposed to avoid parties that didn’t try to establish a government. The partnership might boost Gerb and CC-DB’s election results. If not, both may lose the following poll.
Nigel Farage said that the Conservatives could have prevented net migration from exceeding 50,000 annually after the UK exited the European Union.
Ex-leader of the Brexit Party says the government is “ignoring the will of the people” amid record high levels of net migration.
The Office for National Statistics released official figures yesterday showing net migration of 606,000 for last year, roughly three times the normal pre-Brexit figure of between 200,000 and 250,000.
Mr. Farage told Sky News, “Yes, of course. I suggested before the EU referendum that net migration could be brought down to 50,000.” In a word, yes. Fifty thousand would have been possible. There is no doubt that we could have reached $50,000 annually if they had put me in charge.
“The issue we’re facing at the moment is… I wanted to shake up British politics, I stated 10 years ago. Because Parliament and the Government have rejected the will of the people, we have experienced the earthquake and are still feeling its aftershocks.
“They have ignored what was said in that Brexit referendum, and so now a bigger question emerges as to how we are going to change politics in this country.”
Yesterday, Rishi Sunak stated the figures were “just too high,” and he reaffirmed his resolve to lower them today. He disputed the idea that international migration was out of hand.
News sources suggest US President Joe Biden and senior congressional Republican Kevin McCarthy are nearing an agreement to lift the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling for two years while curbing expenditure on most programs.
A default may shake global financial markets and cause a US recession. DBRS Morningstar, Fitch, Moody’s, and Scope Ratings all warned of a US downgrade on Thursday.
The debt ceiling “brinkmanship” might prompt Fitch to drop the US’s triple A rating. After a 2011 debt-ceiling crisis, S&P Global downgraded US creditworthiness.
The months-long deadlock has frightened Wall Street, lowering US equities and raising borrowing costs. Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said debt limit fears have raised the government’s interest payments by $80m.
An anonymous official told Reuters that the prospective agreement would boost military and veteran discretionary expenditure while maintaining non-defence discretionary spending at present levels.
“Time’s up for all these games around here,” Democratic Representative Don Davis, a US Air Force veteran, said at a news conference.
Reuters said that Republican Study Committee Chairman Kevin Hern expected a resolution by Friday afternoon.
The insider said the White House may scale back its proposal to finance more IRS inspectors and target rich Americans.
A second US source said IRS financing is an open issue, but the important goal is ensuring the agency fulfills the president’s policies, even if budget is slashed or shifted.
A source involved with the discussions said the final pact would set the government’s discretionary spending on housing and education, but not per category. According to another source, the two sides are $70bn apart on a $1 trillion amount.
Not easy.
The White House says Thursday’s meeting was virtual. Biden said they disagreed on where to reduce.
he told reporters.
House Speaker McCarthy stated the two parties had not agreed. We anticipated difficulty.
Congress has uncertain time to act. On Thursday, the Treasury Department announced it will sell $119bn of debt due on June 1, signaling to some market watchers that the deadline was not firm.
Gennadiy Goldberg, senior rates strategist at TD Securities in New York, said, “They have suggested in the past that they would not announce actions that they did not believe they could settle. “That’s good.”
Any deal must pass the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate. That might be difficult as some right-wing Republicans and many liberal Democrats were angered by compromise.
“I don’t think everyone will be happy at the end. McCarthy answered, “That’s not the system.”
Democratic Representative Mark Takano said Biden has opposed Republican efforts to tighten labor requirements for anti-poverty programs and relax oil and gas drilling laws.
Democrats warned that Republicans’ discussions will slash veterans’ healthcare, food, and housing help.
Love him. One may dislike him fiercely. Imran Khan has been tactless lately. He might have handled his campaign for reelection more tactfully. He’s paying. The mighty Pakistan army is currently fighting him to undermine his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf organization and his politics.
But what fascinates many watchers of Khan’s politics, especially here in Bangladesh, is that the former Pakistani prime minister is the first political leader to publicly explain Pakistan’s December 1971 debacle.
Before Khan, many had ruled Pakistan. But none of them had the bravery or integrity to tell Pakistanis that their soldiers repressed Bengalis before dividing the nation.
Imran Khan questioned, “What happened in 1971?” in a video speech a few days ago. He said, “In 1971, the leader of the party which had won the election was not allowed to become prime minister of Pakistan.”
Just how far one may go with a single inquiry
“A politician and the army conspired to keep the majority party from power,” he continued.
Pakistan broke.” That final part was about Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
The world outside Pakistan has long known what the Pakistan military did in Bangladesh in 1971 and how successive governments in Islamabad refused to recognise the fact. Pakistani students have been shielded from East Pakistan conflict facts.
Pakistan frequently portrays the independence of Bangladesh as an Indian conspiracy assisted by Bengali leaders. The army, under by General Yahya Khan and Z A Bhutto, disputed the December 1970 election results and committed mass crimes against Bengalis.
Pakistani academics have acknowledged the 1971 disaster. Pakistanis and their governments have mostly ignored the truth. Imran Khan smashed that taboo. He may be penalized for speaking truthfully. He faces the troops today.
The same army brought him to power and ousted him. Let us not forget that the army propelled Bhutto to prominence, went along with his machinations, and made him president of a rump Pakistan in December 1971. The troops then dragged him to the gallows.
The troops’ intentions toward Imran Khan are unclear. The PTI leader’s recent statements have shocked people since no Pakistani politician has ever publicly criticized the army’s political role. Before Khan, only Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman challenged the army.
The troops believed the Bengali commander deserved punishment. Yahya Khan banned the Awami League and flew Bangabandhu to West Pakistan for a military trial. The majority party leader was tried by a brigadier for winning an election.
History favored Bengalis. 52 years after General AAK Niazi surrendered Pakistan in Dhaka, they may support Imran Khan. Khan isn’t liberating. After his detention, his supporters went on a rampage on May 9. The military aims to trial them under army and terrorist laws.
Khan may face a military tribunal. The Pakistani army, now in charge, will likely outlaw the PTI. Trying Khan and his comrades under the army act will incite residents to oppose the military even more.
Imran Khan has weaknesses. Only his admirers praised his resistance to accept his dismissal from office. His decision to have PTI members of the national assembly quit was imprudent because they might have kept the coalition government that succeeded Khan’s administration on its toes by citing all the recent court and street battles.
Khan’s accusation that the US overthrew him was naïve. He is being accused of hypocrisy for turning to an American congresswoman for help regaining influence over the troops.
Again, Imran Khan’s refusal to leave Pakistan suggests the military’s plans for him. In the late 1970s, many Pakistanis wanted Bhutto sent to Saudi Arabia with a political ban. General Ziaul Haq suppressed Bhutto. Who knows?
Khan’s political future is uncertain in a country where the military decides politicians’ fates. He may be sentenced for treason. He may be imprisoned at home like Iran’s Mohammad Mossadegh in the 1950s. He may serve long sentences like Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. The army may prevent him from returning to politics.
But Imran Khan’s accusation of the army for all of Pakistan’s misfortune has given Pakistanis something to think about. His audacity. It made his fellow citizens consider the ramifications of military involvement in politics. Khan smashed barriers.
Pakistanis, young and old, have apologized to Bengalis on social media for the 1971 war. Imran Khan has told his countrymen the truth about the Bengali fight against military Pakistan over 50 years ago.
In January 1969, a rising Zulfikar Ali Bhutto declared: “The wheel of time will turn; and in the revolution of that turn a better tomorrow will dawn.”
Ironically, Bhutto and Yahya Khan stopped time in 1971. Mud jammed the wheel.
We’ll see if Imran Khan’s war on the army improves Pakistan.
According to the most recent 1News-Kantar political poll, National and ACT could form a coalition government, and Christopher Luxon’s personal popularity has marginally increased.
Since March, National has gained three points in the poll. With Labour losing one percentage point and the Greens losing all four points of support gained in the previous poll, even with Mori Party support they would fall short of governing.
The results would give National 47 seats and ACT 15 seats, one more than the 61-seat threshold required to hold a majority in Parliament.
Assuming they won at least one electorate, Labour would have 46 seats, the Greens would have 9, and Te Pti Mori would have three.
Chris Hipkins lost two points of support as preferred prime minister since the March poll, but still led National’s Chris Luxon, who gained one point, by a margin of 25 percent to 18 percent.
Between February and March, Luxon’s popularity took a five-point blow in the race for the position of favored prime minister.
This most recent survey was conducted from 20 to 24 May, following the publication of the federal budget:
National: 37 percent, up 3
Labour: 35 percent, down 1
ACT: 11 percent, steady
Green Party: 7 percent, down 4
NZ First: 3 percent, steady
Te Pāti Māori: 2 percent, down 1
TOP: 1 percent, steady
Democracy NZ: 1 percent, steady
New Conservative: 1 percent, steady
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party: 1 percent, up 1
Undecided: 12 percent, down 1
Preferred PM:
Chris Hipkins: 25 percent, down 2
Christopher Luxon: 18 percent, up 1
David Seymour: 7 percent, up 1
Winston Peters: 2 percent, down 1
Chloe Swarbrick: 2 percent, up 1
Nicola Willis: 1 percent, steady
Jacinda Ardern: 1 percent, down 1
Rawiri Waititi: 1 percent, steady
The survey questioned 1002 eligible electors, with a margin of error of 3.1% at a confidence interval of 95%.
The previous Kantar survey, conducted in March, revealed a mild downward trend for both Labour and National, with the Greens gaining four points to 11 percent, ACT gaining one point – also to 11 percent – and Te Pti Mori gaining two points to 3 percent.
That would have given Labour and the Greens 60 seats, requiring the support of Te Pti Mori to form a government, while National and ACT would fall short of the 61-seat majority with 57 seats.
BRICS foreign ministers will meet in South Africa on June 1-2 to discuss geopolitical issues, including the bloc’s first enlargement in over a decade, as it seeks to represent the “Global South” and offer an alternative to the Group of Seven.
In an exclusive interview, South Africa’s ambassador to BRICS, Anil Sooklal, said the top diplomats of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa will discuss at least 20 countries’ formal and informal membership applications and future enlargement at their summit in Cape Town.
China, which led the group last year, advocated expanding representation from Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia, including Egypt, Nigeria, Mexico, Iran, Indonesia, Turkey, and others.
Sooklal added, “This is positive news for the bloc, as it demonstrates the confidence of the Global South in the leadership of our group.” The meetings will also focus on increasing local currency commerce.
About 100 developing nations form the Global South.
Sooklal said the BRICS is seeking to establish a “more inclusive” international order that “addresses the existing fault lines on the global, geopolitical, geoeconomic and financial architecture.” Most of them are still sidelined in global decision-making.
“These countries want a greater say in the evolving global architecture,” the envoy stated. “They want a multipolar, multicultural, multi-civilizational world that is not dominated by one or two hegemons and where they have more independence and choices to determine what’s in their best interest.”
According to Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program at CSIS, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made the BRICS more relevant, especially for Global South countries that want to resist the West’s “autocracy-vs-democracy” narrative.
He noted that multilateral bodies that bring together Global South nations can balance the urge to align with the US or China on specific problems and retain a limited policy autonomy for many of them.
Most nations wishing to join the transregional BRICS are not G7 enemies and do not reject the liberal international order. They simply want to hedge their risks in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical and geoeconomic landscape.
Sebastian Maslow, a Sendai Shirayuri Women’s College instructor, said the rising involvement with global frameworks shows that power and national interest are rapidly diversifying.
He noted that G7 members like India and Brazil attended summits last year and recently in Hiroshima, indicating that they recognize this competition over the Global South. If expanded, the BRICS grouping is expected to provide other emerging economies with a platform to advocate their interests and coordinate action.
Maslow added that adding more members alone will not enable BRICS to counteract the U.S.-led world order or challenge international norms and values. He noted that the grouping must first present an alternative that legitimately undermines the benefits of the current system.
However, economic growth, a primary priority in Global South countries, is the group’s goal.
BRICS countries typically prioritized development above the G7. Experts suggest they are more flexible on governance methods, which might mean different economic and financial norms, regulations, and practices.
Former White House official Joe Sullivan, now with The Lindsey Group, an economic advising business, said this focus is because Global South countries see the International Monetary Fund and World Bank as not representing them.
Sullivan noted that the projected expansion will offer BRICS greater influence and legitimacy as an alternative to Western-led organizations.
“With credibility comes bargaining power,”
BRICS initiatives, such as the New Development Bank (NDB), may provide these nations more flexible funding than the IMF or World Bank.
Stefanie Kam, a research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said the BRICS group wants to help these nations collaborate on economic and development challenges rather than political and security issues.
Kam noted that Chinese wealth, particularly in extractive, infrastructure, and commerce sectors, is dictating growth in many of these nations.
Emerging countries are seeking alternate sources of money amid worries about the sustainability and trustworthiness of the West’s pivot to Asia, which some see as driven by Beijing’s expanding international influence.
Acorn Macro Consulting, a U.K.-based economic research firm, reported earlier this year that the BRICS members now account for 31.5% of global GDP (PPP), surpassing the G7’s 30.7%.
If additional nations join the BRICS, that gap and their economic power are projected to widen this year. The organization realizes it needs lessen its reliance on the U.S. dollar to offer itself as an alternative economic growth model.
According to Berg, BRICS members want a non-dollar-denominated world to have more policy autonomy. India has rupee payment arrangements with at least 18 nations, including Russia.
Brazil and Argentina have struck currency exchange accords with Beijing to trade in Chinese yuan to lower trade costs and decrease vulnerability to U.S. dollar swings.
In April, ex-Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, the NDB’s leader, said that at least 30% of loans will be in member nations’ native currencies.
“Financial independence and sovereignty,” Sooklal stated. “These countries want more investment, trade, and financing determination. He continued, “They’re not tied to a currency or financial institution.”
Perhaps more crucially, BRICS countries realize that the dollar-based payment system makes them vulnerable to U.S. sanctions. After Russia was sanctioned for its invasion of Ukraine, Moscow and Beijing greatly boosted local currency transactions.
China, in an escalating geopolitical confrontation with Washington, must reduce dependency to internationalize the yuan and limit the impact of U.S. sanctions on the world’s second biggest economy.
Ian Chong, a political science professor at the National University of Singapore, suggested using another currency for transactions. He said that long-term monetary stability is crucial to its success.
South Africa joined BRICS in 2011, the only expansion since 2006.
Current members have diverse motives for wanting new members. Maslow said China might utilize a larger BRICS group to push new global standards that support its Belt and Road program, as well as the yuan.
The expert said Russia could use the group to show its citizens and the world that Moscow is not isolated despite Western sanctions, while India could use it to strengthen its role as leader of the Global South and keep China in check through multilateral engagement.
However, enormous obstacles are ahead. Enlarging BRICS would show its popularity, but it might dilute membership benefits.
The bloc’s growing variety in political and economic systems may make consensus on important issues harder than in the democratic G7.
The group’s leaders will likely debate these problems during their annual summit in August.
Pakistan’s tricky power politics are known. The PTI is cracking under immense pressure.
Shireen Mazari and Fayyaz Chohan, among others, have quit the party. Former prime minister Imran Khan is paying for challenging his influential sponsors.
Cut a rebellious protégé. The May 9 mayhem gave the establishment a reason to retaliate with unprecedented force.
The crackdown imprisoned thousands of PTI sympathizers.
Courts extended Imran Khan’s bail again, but the noose is tightening. The maverick leader faces his biggest political challenge.
His popularity seemed to have survived the defections. But his political prospects rely on how long—and if—the senior leadership can resist the establishment and stand behind him in his hour of reckoning.
Military tribunals may try some of the senior leadership.
Politics have altered in recent weeks. It ended the PTI-security establishment standoff. Khan’s rule is ironically reversed.
Three years before, at a banquet for the ruling coalition MPs, he arrogantly declared “we are the only choice” for the establishment. The game has shifted as he faces the same institution. Reconciliation appears impossible after May 9.
Khan may have thought street strength might intimidate the elite. He targeted the army leader. He accused him of “attempting to impede his path to reclaiming power” in a foreign TV interview. He looked carried away by his fans’ social media assumption of a top brass split.
Brinkmanship backfired. The rampant vandalism of army sites, notably memorials to deceased troops, has enraged Punjabis.
The May 9 violence has altered the heartland’s anti-establishment views, despite Khan’s narrative. The PDM’s enormous media blitz publicizing its followers’ destruction has also weakened the PTI.
It has empowered security forces to crack down on PTI supporters like never before. Human rights have been brutally violated. Senior party members must reject the violence.
After days of reluctance, Imran Khan condemned military installations strikes. The standoff hasn’t improved. The army calls May 9 a “dark chapter” in the country’s history, and the establishment won’t forget.
Khan’s escalating conflict with the military has provided the weak governing coalition some room. Its goal appears to be labeling the PTI a terrorist outfit or removing Imran Khan from the election. The minus-one formula to keep political leaders out of the arena has never worked and will not work now.
The maverick leader faces his biggest political challenge.
His combative politics have also failed Imran Khan. His changing narrative has caused credibility concerns. He now denies the American regime change scheme. After months of criticizing America, he now wants American legislators to persuade the Pakistani establishment to cease the onslaught on his party.
His ouster is no longer linked to an American plot. Khan is seeking international intervention like his opponents. His pivot may not affect his hard-core supporters, but his false narrative of regime change plot has severely hurt the democratic process.
Khan has fewer alternatives after the party purge. The party has been demoralized by the exit of second- and third-tier members and Dr. Mazari.
As the standoff with the elite continues, the party’s fractures may grow. The party cannot sustain such persecution since it relies on middle-class support.
The party’s refusal to talk to other political parties has deteriorated its situation. Khan’s decision to leave the National Assembly and prematurely dissolve the Punjab and KP assemblies has hurt the party most.
Imran Khan had failed to overthrow the PDM administration using street force. He preferred street protests over parliament.
Khan attempted to destroy the building, hurting democracy and boosting the regime. He was too arrogant to realize he could only return to power democratically.
His false narrative of regime transition and public dissatisfaction with the PDM’s policies may have helped him garner broad support. He failed to construct a strong political organization on a good platform.
He battled political rivals and the establishment, which cost him. He relied on the establishment while challenging it. Khan never grasped populism’s limits.
The party’s collapse under state repression is unparalleled. The previous prime minister must decide. He may learn from his blunders.
In the Biblical account of the Garden of Eden, our earliest ancestors learn right from wrong and suffer the repercussions of wrongdoing. Many public personalities haven’t learned.
The Durham Report, which took four years to release, proved FBI officers’ guilt in pursuing a bogus accusation of collaboration between Donald Trump and Russian operatives to influence the 2016 presidential election.
The study effectively condemns the Clinton-paid Steele dossier, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court surveillance petitions, and former intelligence officials including James Clapper and John Brennan.
As someone who spent his entire career in publishing, I am appalled at the mainstream media’s complete failure to do even basic investigative journalism in pursuit of the truth, while letting Congress members Adam Schiff and Maxine Waters get away with outrageous lies.
Rachel Maddow and Nicole Wallace, who promoted the Trump-Russia conspiracy thesis for four years, denounced the Durham Report without reading it.
Mendacity to gain political power or influence destroys civilization.
U.S. Rep. James Comer’s House Oversight Committee accused the Biden family of high-dollar influence peddling and money-laundering after the Durham Report. Mainstream media ignored the revelations as predicted.
As if that weren’t enough, Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee produced proof that now-Secretary of State Anthony Blinken requested the 51 intelligence officer letter rejecting the Hunter Biden laptop tale as likely Russian misinformation for the Biden campaign. Another media-ignorant inside job.
All three culprits lack remorse or guilt.
Not all right-left disputes are moral. Despite strong opinions, we know that topics like same-sex marriage and abortion require legislative compromise. After several school massacres, sensible gun law concessions are needed.
However, parents’ rights in their children’s education and gender affirming surgery without consent remain uncompromising. Parents won’t tolerate dysphoric guys in girls’ locker rooms or playing women’s sports.
These instances suggest common-sense cultural moderation. But we cannot lie to further an ideology.
Moses’ 10 Commandments are part of our Judeo-Christian history. Humans break all 10, some more than others. The 8th, which forbids perjury, false oaths, calumny, slander, and all lies, is most commonly broken.
We demand honesty. Too many leaders disobey. Instead, they feel obligated to lie to achieve their goals. How long can our nation endure with so few truth-seekers?
