Showing posts sorted by date for query patriarchy. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query patriarchy. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, October 06, 2026

How Can We Build a World Post Capitalism?

In Capitalism: A Global History (Penguin 2025), Seven Beckert’s original approach to understanding capitalism helps us to see possibilities for challenging it in the present precarious time we are living in.


A woman holds a banner ‘Capitalism Is the Crisis’ during Climate Strike protest organized by Fridays for Future movement also known as Youth Strike for Climate in Krakow, Poland on September 24, 2021.
(Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Cynthia Kaufman
Oct 05, 2026
Common Dreams


The billionaires are putting our world at risk through support for unregulated AI, funding the fossil fuel industry, and undermining democracy. They are using their unprecedented levels of power to lead us toward multiple pathways of total human annihilation.

Now is a good time to reflect on ways to challenge capitalism, a driving force behind the madness we face. And yet, on one side we have many people who are hesitant to name capitalism as a force behind destruction we face. On the other side, many of those few who do name capitalism use outdated and unhelpful frameworks for understanding how to challenge capitalism.

Sven Beckert’s Capitalism: A Global History (Penguin 2025) is a book worth reading if you are interested in building a world past capitalism. Beckert’s original approach to understanding capitalism helps us to see possibilities for challenging it in the present precarious time we are living in.

Its approach to understanding capitalism as a process pushed by capitalists, developing their power, and colonizing the matrix of our social world, explains capitalism in ways that point to more productive approaches to anti-capitalism.

Beckert’s book has received awards and is being read widely. Yet much of the attention has been negative. Writing in The New Yorker, Gideon Lewis-Kraus faulted the book for having such a diffuse idea of capitalism that it becomes “an inescapable vibe—responsible for everything, everywhere, all at once.” In his review in The Nation Corey Robin criticized it for offering a fuzzy and imprecise understanding of capitalism, which then makes the book unhelpful for shaping our anti-capitalist thinking.

These criticisms miss the political power and potential of this unorthodox approach to understanding capitalism. Beckert’s book takes capitalism to its origins and puts it into a global framework. It focuses on the agency of capitalists as a group of people who over time bring capitalism as a global system into being. Beckert’s analysis helps us update our understanding of capitalism in ways that make pathways to challenging it clear and actionable. Many anti-capitalist thinkers are stuck in a stale 19th century understanding of what we are up against. Those approaches make our search for solutions narrow and not actionable in the present.

There are three dead ends to anti-capitalist thought that Becker’s approach avoids. One is that capitalism began in Britain with the industrial revolution. That idea encourages anti-capitalist thinkers to focus on class as something separate from race and patriarchy. A second is that the main victims of capitalism are the industrial working class, that idea leads us to focus on the industrial working class as the most important carriers of movements to challenge capitalism. The third mistaken approach is that the only way to get rid of capitalism is through overthrowing the system in a dramatic revolution. That leads anti-capitalist organizers to focus on getting others to see how bad capitalism is but does not encourage them to build power to challenge it in the present. Each of these tendencies has its own way of being unhelpful for building anti-capitalist politics. Beckert’s approach to capitalism helps us find pathways beyond all of them.

Rather than staring his analysis of capitalism at the transition from feudalism to capitalism, as most anti-capitalist thinkers do, Beckert’s story begins in 1150 in Aden, in what is now Yemen. He argues that at that time, largely in the Muslim world, there emerged a global trade in luxury goods. It impacted very few people’s lives, and there were no societies based on it. This was a period of the emergence of capitalists—a very small subset of the population who traded goods for the sole purpose of generating wealth.

Many societies have engaged in trade to obtain goods that they could not produce themselves. What distinguishes capitalists from other traders is that they engage in trade for profits alone. The goal of any given transaction is money itself rather than something that money could buy.

Capital itself is money, or resources, invested for the sole purpose of generating more money. Early capitalists originally worked within the political realities they found around them. Over time these merchants worked to create political systems that would enable them to generate more wealth. These early capitalists often engaged in work to get governments to create conditions that were favorable to them. Think of Columbus and his relationship with Queen Isabella.

When these disparate acts of capitalists began to be elevated to the society-wide phenomenon we now call capitalism, was when they were able to control a land base and extract wealth, not just from trading, but from producing as well. Over time these merchants came to control more land and resources. Forced labor in the form of slavery was central to the early days of capitalism. So was colonialism: the forcible taking of land on which to engage in profit-seeking actions.

As more and more resources are controlled by capitalist processes, and as capitalists became more politically powerful, a large part of human society came to be dominated by these logics. Eventually, resistance to slavery made that form of exploitation less desirable to the elites. Employers were able to hire people into wage labor as the enclosure of commons threw them off the land they had previously used to sustain themselves. Colonialism was beaten back by people fighting for control over the political systems that dominated the places they lived. In many places colonialism was replaced by neocolonialism, where local people controlled the political system but continued to run the economy in the interest of faraway elites.

Beckert’s analysis broadens our frame in ways that allow us to avoid the pitfalls of an anti-capitalism that focuses only on the class-based harms of capitalism. If you accept the older framework, which focuses on capitalism as mostly about the exploitation of the industrial working class in Europe, then its relationships to slavery and colonialism are hard to understand. Much anti-capitalist thinking sees capitalism as a step forward from slavery and colonialism, rather than as their cause.

With regard to patriarchy, much anti-capitalist thinking focuses on the experiences of wage laborers rather than on the impacts of capitalist processes on the broader matrix of society that it transforms and destroys. This can lead to an anti-capitalist politics that defines the victims of capitalism so narrowly that racism and patriarchy are outside the frame of analysis. That makes building broad coalitions for anti-capitalist politics harder to achieve.

Moving on to the second dead end of much anti-capitalist thinking, if you see capitalism as fundamentally about the exploitation of labor, then you will not see the wide variety of ways that capitalism destroys the social fabric in which it operates. By prioritizing production and distribution that are done in markets for profits, capitalist ways of operating marginalize and deny resources to the caregiving matrix of our lives.

Caregiving labor, which has been disproportionately done by women, becomes socially invisible and undervalued. It is especially not valued in the discipline of Economics, which is largely the study of the profit-making sector. That narrow focus ignores the wide variety of ways that many people’s lives are made miserable by not having access to the resources they need to live well. It also ignores the many non-capitalist aspects of our economies that continue to thrive, even as the capitalist sector has increasingly large impacts on our shared social world.

By focusing on the capitalist class, as a group of people who are ready to subordinate our world to profit seeking, and by showing that members of that class act in a variety of ways in relationship to government, and the rest of society, in order to make the world over to enable their profit seeking, Beckert opens up our perception to the wide range of ways that capitalism causes destruction. He therefore opens us to a wide range of ways to fight against it.

Beckert’s approach is aligned with the work of Karl Polanyi. In The Great Transformation, his pathbreaking book from 1944, Polanyi argued that, in previous times, markets were subordinated to other social logics, and so their negative impacts were limited. What distinguishes capitalism is that the logic of markets comes to dominate, and their centrality undermines other ways societies have been structured to ensure that people’s needs are met. Markets come to have lives of their own, and the needs of markets come to dominate over the needs of people or the rest of nature.

Beckert updates Polanyi’s analysis by adding more detail, and also by naming more clearly than Polanyi does the forms of agency behind these destructive practices. This approach allows us to understand capitalism less as a total system and more as a set of destructive practices driven by those addicted to the profit motive. This approach helps us imagine a variety of ways to challenge capitalism.

We need to break the spell of pro-capitalist thinkers’ claim that human economies are best served when markets are allowed to decide what is produced, how it is produced, and who gets the things produced. We need to figure out how best to ensure that we are making the things we need, in ways that are sustainable, and distributed in ways that ensure that everyone’s needs are met.

We need to fight against the powers of the owners of capital by breaking our dependencies on capitalism for our survival. Fighting against the exploitation we experience in wage labor is a part of that. But gathering social resources for the caregiving aspects of our lives, developing public goods, and preventing the environmental damage caused by corporations pursuing profit at any cost, are also crucial aspects of challenging capitalism.

Finally, Beckert’s approach allows us to avoid the third and most destructive element of standard anti-capitalist thinking: the belief that we need to wait for a revolution. If you think of capitalism as a focused system that came into being all at once with one major transformation, it is easy then to imagine the way to get rid of it is through overthrowing that system with one large blow. That way of thinking about how to get rid of capitalism doesn’t position us well to understand the work we need to be doing right now to build power to stop the forces of social destruction while building the better world we are looking for, now.

Rather than waiting for a revolution to overthrow capitalism, anti-capitalists need to build power to fight against the variety of ways that the capitalist class is destroying our world. One way to think of this is with the idea of revolutionary reforms, the steps we take to make our world better, as we fight against the forms of destruction caused by capitalism and against the power of the capitalist class to destroy our social fabric.

Both Beckert, and Polanyi before him, owe a great deal to the work of Karl Marx. Marx’s criticism of capitalism remains an invaluable starting point for anti-capitalist thinking. But Marx’s narrow focus on the exploitation of labor as the single most important form of destruction caused by capitalism has led generations of anti-capitalist activists to hope the industrial working class would lead us away from capitalism. Those hopes have been repeatedly disappointed.

Marx faulted colonialism and slavery for the ways they were part of the destruction caused by capitalism, but many of his followers see those processes as side issues to the problem of capitalism. And so many anti-capitalists insist on a class-first analysis, which undermines their ability to work well in broad coalitions.

On the question of revolution or reform, Marx actually said very little. And much of what he said was contradictory. In places, he argued that the path away from capitalism was through building political power via elections. At other times, he claimed that all of that was a distraction from a revolution that would overturn all social relations in a short dramatic period. Many followers of Marx assume, incorrectly, that he only supported the second strategy,

Much of the criticism of Beckert’s book from the left has rested on the ways his understanding deviates from a telling of the history that leads to the core set of beliefs that have kept anti-capitalist thinking from being politically productive. Beckert’s Capitalism: A Global History doesn’t address these questions of political strategy. But its approach to understanding capitalism as a process pushed by capitalists, developing their power, and colonizing the matrix of our social world, explains capitalism in ways that point to more productive approaches to anti-capitalism. If we want to bring anti-capitalist analysis into the broad liberatory social movements that are animating our time, we need to base our anti-capitalism on an updated understanding of what we are up against. Beckert’s book offers a starting point for that understanding.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.



Cynthia Kaufman

Cynthia Kaufman is a writer and educator. She is the author of six books on social change: Solidarity Economics: Building Sustainable Social Relations (Routledge 2026),Consumerism, Sustainability, and Happiness: How to Build a World Where Everyone Has Enough (Routledge 2023), The Sea is Rising and So Are We: A Climate Justice Handbook (PM Press 2021), Challenging Power: Democracy and Accountability in a Fractured World (Bloomsbury 2020), Getting Past Capitalism: History, Vision, Hope (Lexington Books 2012), and Ideas for Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change (2nd Edition PM Press 2016). Visit her website.
Full Bio >

Student protests erupt at Cornell over mishandling of gang-rape allegations


Sam Levin, Keely Aouga and Edward Helmore
Mon, October 5, 2026 
THE GUARDIAN


Thousands of students and faculty gathered for a demonstration at Cornell.Photograph: Olga Fedorova/EPA

Mass protests erupted at Cornell University on Monday, with students criticizing officials' handling of gang-rape allegations, demanding the president's resignation and painting "SMASH THE PATRIARCHY" on an administration building.

Thousands of students and faculty gathered for a demonstration, sparked by the high-profile case of a former student known as Jane Doe, who said in a recent lawsuit that she was plied with drugs and raped at a fraternity house in 2024. The case has prompted international outrage and intense scrutiny of college fraternities and sexual violence on US campuses.

Protesters shouted, "Ban the frats" and held signs saying, "At Cornell, rapists are safer than women" and "Stop rape culture." Some demonstrators directed their anger at Michael Kotlikoff, Cornell's president, arguing he had failed to keep students safe and chanting, "Kotlikoff, resign!"

The demonstration took place after some students had smashed a glass door at the entrance of Day Hall, a building that houses the president's office, and painted messages on the facade at approximately 3am on Monday, the Cornell Daily Sun reported.

The messages in red paint read "SMASH THE PATRIARCHY" and "AT CORNELL RAPISTS ARE PROTECTED PROTESTORS ARE EXPELLED". The security camera above one of the messages was also painted over.

The students who graffitied the building said in a statement to the student newspaper that they were protesting "the global systems of power that allowed this to happen in the first place".

Related: Before Cornell turmoil, successive US administrations seesawed in attitudes towards campus assaults

"We wanted to ensure that Day Hall, the center of Cornell's administrative function, was not able to continue business as usual," the statement added. The students' painted message was a reference to arguments that campus officials had treated pro-Palestine protesters more harshly than students accused of sexual misconduct, with four student demonstrators suspended in 2024, according to the Cornell Daily Sun.

Kyle Kimball, a Cornell spokesperson, condemned vandalism in a statement on Monday.

"We understand the frustration and strong emotions being expressed across our community. Those concerns deserve to be heard, but damaging property is not the answer," Kimball said. "We are investigating the vandalism at Day Hall and will address it in accordance with University policy and applicable law."

The student activists defended their actions in a manifesto obtained by the student publication. "We reject the dogma that would condemn our actions this morning as violent while excusing rape," they wrote. "Property damage is not violent; condoning rape is."

The demonstrations escalated as Cornell faces widespread backlash for its handling of Jane Doe's case, with critics saying the university had been too lenient with the accused men and had failed the victim.

According to lawyers for Jane Doe, who filed a civil lawsuit against the university and her alleged attackers earlier in September, only two members of the Chi Phi fraternity were expelled after the October 2024 incident, in which she said she was repeatedly raped over the course of seven hours. Jane Doe dropped out of Cornell after the incident.

A third fraternity member, who had already graduated, was barred from the Cornell campus, the New York Times reported on Saturday. Two more were reportedly given suspensions and disciplinary probation.

Two other men, the outlet said, were ordered not to contact the sophomore and required to study sexual harassment, social media use and bystander intervention, and to write "reflection papers".

The lawsuit claimed that the seven fraternity members allegedly involved in the incident were "afforded the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays to Cornell".

Related: Cornell University to take 'serious look' at fraternities after rape allegations

The university has said that claim does not accurately reflect what occurred. The accused men have denied all wrongdoing.

One student protester who addressed the crowd on Monday said: "Too often, we are met with silence, we are met with statements, we are met with procedures, but not enough support. How much does it take for our university to stand with survivors?"

And a professor, according to the AP, said to applause: "Rape should not be inevitable."

Matthew Van Houten, the Tompkins county district attorney, who is also under fire for his office's handling of the original allegations, announced last week he was reopening the case. Van Houten said Jane Doe, who was 20 at the time of the alleged assault, presented allegations in her lawsuit that were "dramatically different" from the statement she gave to police two years ago. Jane Doe's attorney has pushed back on those claims and accused the DA of failing to do a thorough investigation after the incident.

Kathy Hochul, the New York governor, said on Thursday she was appointing Letitia James, the state's attorney general, as special prosecutor to investigate the alleged gang rape at Cornell University.

Kotlikoff, the university president under fire, addressed the case in a video message on Saturday, saying the school would take steps to prevent a similar situation in the ⁠future. That included "a serious look at the role of fraternities and sororities in campus life", Kotlikoff said.

The Associated Press contributed reporting

• Information and support for anyone affected by rape or sexual abuse issues is available from the following organizations. In the US, Rainn offers support on 800-656-4673. In the UK, Rape Crisis offers support on 0808 500 2222. In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732). Other international helplines can be found at ibiblio.org/rcip/internl.html


A crowd of students protests Cornell’s response to gang rape complaint


BY LEAH WILLINGHAM AND TASSANEE VEJPONGSA
AP
October 5, 2026

ITHACA, New York (AP) — Cornell students thronged a campus plaza to protest the university’s response to allegations of sexual assault at a fraternity house, and the school’s main administration building was splashed with graffiti and damaged overnight.

At a demonstration that overflowed the large space in front of the school’s student center, students, faculty members and others wore purple ribbons and held signs with such messages as “support survivors, expel rapists” and “Justice 4 every Jane Doe” — the name by which the woman who reported the assault is known in court papers. Other people watched from pathways, windows and a nearby hill.

“Too often, we are met with silence, we are met with statements, we are met with procedures, but not enough support,” student Athena Holloway told the crowd. “How much does it take for our university to stand with survivors?”

Hispanic studies professor Julia Chang added to applause: “Rape should not be inevitable.”

Calls for Cornell president’s resignation

Speakers faulted fraternities, the university trustees and Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff, saying he and his administration have prioritized protecting the university’s reputation over students’ safety.

“Kotlikoff, resign!” demonstrators chanted, among other slogans, as they marched to the damaged administration building to present a list of demands. They included changes to how the student code of conduct defines sexual consent, an overhaul of the student discipline system and expulsions or degree revocations for all students involved in the alleged 2024 assault of the woman known as Jane Doe, among other things.

The woman’s account of being sexually assaulted by several fraternity brothers has made clear, on and beyond campus, that “for all the strong feelings about sexual assault, .... we do not do enough to prevent it, nor to support survivors after it happens,” student Madeline Gage said.

The group began disbanding with chants including “ban the frats!”


RELATED STORIES

Woman told Cornell police 2 years ago she was 100% confident she was raped, report says

New York Gov. Hochul pushes for investigation into Cornell’s handling of a 2024 gang rape allegation
Prosecutor reopens probe into Cornell gang rape allegations after accuser files lawsuit


Graffiti and broken glass at an administration building

The Ivy League school has been trying to quell a firestorm over its handling of the alleged 2024 gang rape. Early Monday, the university found signs of the anger on the very walls of its administrative headquarters.

Holes were knocked into one of the building’s glass doors, and the walls beside them were marked with red-painted messages condemning patriarchy and the Ivy League school’s handling of sexual assaults, news media photos showed. Later Monday, the graffiti was removed and the door was boarded up.

Cornell spokesperson Kyle Kimball said in a statement that the university was investigating and that “damaging property is not the answer” to Cornellians’ “frustration and strong emotions.” Campus police referred questions to his office, which declined to provide more detail on the incident.

Jane Doe alleges that she was sexually assaulted by multiple Chi Phi fraternity members in October 2024 after being pressured into drinking and taking drugs. She was a Cornell student at the time.

The woman recently sued the university, seven former students, the fraternity and others. Her lawsuit said that she became fully incapacitated as fraternity members assaulted her, and that one man sent others a message inviting them to participate

“I felt like bait. I felt like lions around me. It just was a totally debilitating place to be in,” she told Cornell investigators last year, according to records reviewed by The Associated Press.

Lawyers for two of the former students denied they participated in a sexual assault. Attempts by The Associated Press to reach the other men or their representatives have been unsuccessful. Court records show that some of the accused students, when interviewed by Cornell investigators, described the sexual activity as consensual.

Shortly before she went to Cornell police in November 2024, Jane Doe recorded a phone call with one of the men she says raped her. ABC News broadcast portions of that call Monday, containing only what it said was his voice, and recounted other parts of the conversation in writing.

“What y’all did would be classified as gang rape,” she told him at one point, according to the network, which said she had provided the recording to the university.

Students are demanding transparency, accountability

The suit has drawn national attention to what Cornell, its police force and the local district attorney did after she told the campus police in November 2024 she “can say with 100% confidence I was raped.”

No criminal charges have been filed. The Chi Phi chapter at Cornell was shut down, and the Ivy League university has said it expelled some students and suspended others. In a statement last week, the administration bristled about the “false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this case.”

Students, however, have demanded more accountability and transparency, and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has said Jane Doe was “failed by people and institutions” including the Cornell police and local District Attorney Matthew Van Houten.

Hochul appointed the state attorney general last week to take over a criminal investigation that Van Houten had reopened days earlier, and the governor called for an independent review of Cornell’s handling of the matter.

After the week’s developments, Kotlikoff released an apologetic video Saturday, saying that Jane Doe’s account “raises heartbreaking and troubling issues about sexual assault, dehumanization and aspects of party culture, alcohol and drug use.”

Kotlikoff reaffirmed his support for an independent review of the university’s actions and vowed more transparency and a commitment to “finding the answers our community deserves.”

___

Associated Press writer Jennifer Peltz contributed from New York.

TASSANEE VEJPONGSA
Vejpongsa is a video journalist for The Associated Press in Philadelphia. She was previously based in Taipei and Bangkok.


Cornell Frat Brothers Reportedly Did ‘Damage Control’ After Gang Rape Allegations


Katherine Schaffstall
Mon, October 5, 2026 
USWEEKLY


Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Key takeaways

Chi Phi fraternity brothers at Cornell University allegedly tried to contain gang rape allegations made against them by the victim, who went from believing the encounters were consensual to describing them as a "gang rape" on a phone call.



Several of the Chi Phi fraternity brothers involved in the Cornell University scandal allegedly tried to contain the gang rape allegations made against them, according to new phone calls released from the investigation.

After a student went to campus police to report that she had been gang raped by seven members of Chi Phi in October 2024, several of the fraternity brothers allegedly tried to do "damage control" to make sure the victim was "not upset about the situation," according to school records reviewed by ABC News.

The fraternity brothers' efforts came as the victim – identified as Jane Doe to protect her privacy – went from believing the sexual encounters were consensual to describing the situation as a "gang rape" on a phone call.

"The only way for me to heal is to know what happened," the woman, who was a junior at the time of the incident, told one of her alleged attackers during a phone call that took place before she reported the incident to police on November 8, 2024. "That's why I'm trying to just piece it together, you know, like I'm just like confused."

Cornell University Insists There Were 'Consequential Punishments' After Alleged Gang Rape of Student

He then invited Doe to the fraternity house, according to the police report. (The fraternity brothers denied any wrongdoing and hve not been criminally charged in the case.)

After Doe reported the incident to Cornell police, he claimed he was too intoxicated to consent and suggested that Doe assaulted him, per school records.

Campus police spoke to many witnesses to piece together what happened, with one person stating that the fraternity brothers tried to ease Doe's concerns.

"They tried to contact [Jane] almost every day after it happened to, I guess, keep them on her good side and keep her happy and not upset about the situation," the victim's friend told campus authorities in May 2025, according to records viewed by ABC News.

Despite their efforts to deescalate Doe's concerns, she still went forward and reported the incident. The fraternity members then allegedly started working on their plan to cover up the incident, according to records.

"F***," one brother wrote in a group chat on November 8, 2024, after Doe went to campus police. "Should I call [Jane]?"

"Wait a bit for me and [Executive Board] to figure out what we're doing cuz there are a couple of other things going on," the fraternity's president responded, per the outlet. "When was the last time you spoke to [Jane]?"

The records also revealed that Doe stayed in touch with some of the men who allegedly assaulted her, and she even expressed concerns about her reputation and physical health in the aftermath of the attack.

"I will also say this is f***ing RUINING my life temporarily. My reputation is destroyed and I'm utterly ashamed. I'm f***ing pissed cause this many people shouldn't know and I feel like I know who some of the rats in the room were," she wrote to the alleged attacked after he invited her to the fraternity.

Two days after she reported the incident, Doe reportedly contacted three of the alleged attackers involved in the incident so they could discuss what had happened. She told them that she had gone to the emergency room and was going through therapy.

The View's Sunny Hostin Defends DA for Not Prosecuting Alleged Cornell Gang Rapists: 'No Way'

"If I just know what happened, then I can feel a little bit better and move on and maybe be able to stay at this school," Doe told the alleged attacker in a phone call, which she recorded and gave to police.

Doe said she sustained physical harm during the incident, and said she was struggling to finish the semester and could not understand how the events transpired.

"You did tell me you were sober, by the way," he said, per the recording. "You did, you said you hadn't been anywhere."

However, Doe insisted that his claim was "not true" and she "never would have said that."

Doe then asked how so many people ended up in the bedroom, and he responded, "The door was just unlocked…the party was sort of like crowded…there was nowhere else to go."

The alleged attacker did not mention the Snapchat messages that were sent to the fraternity's group chat, in which the members advertised "free p***y" in the room. "Like you can walk in and whip it out," he wrote to the group, per ABC News. "Boys come whip it out."

Also during the phone call, Doe told the alleged attacker that what "y'all did would be classified as gang rape."

"It's possible that both of us like remember this and it's not true," he said later on in the call.

"I don't think that that's true. No, no, because I remember looking up and being like that is too many people," she responded.

Hours after Doe went to police, Cornell's Chi Phi fraternity was suspended and an investigation was launched. The school ultimately suspended two of the men that allegedly assaulted her. However, the five others that she claimed assaulted her were only suspended. No one has been pressed with criminal charges.

Nearly two years after the incident, Doe filed a civil complaint and Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten announced his office was reopening an investigation into the allegations.

If you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted, contact the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673).




Monday, October 05, 2026

Balochistan: The Female Face Of Insurgency – Analysis




Baluchistan, Pakistan. Credit: VOA


October 3, 2026
SATP

By Ruchika Kakkar



Key Takeaways:

SATP reports that the banned Balochistan Liberation Front claimed its new all-female Karima Armed Assault Division’s first operation on Sept. 22, 2026, an ambush on an Action Task Force convoy near Jusak on the CPEC highway in Kech; no independent casualty figures were released, and the group also posted training footage.

The piece reads KAAD, named for activist Karima Baloch, as a 2025–26 shift after the BLF’s first claimed female suicide attack at Nokundi on Nov. 30, 2025, catching up with the BLA’s Majeed Brigade, which has publicized female attackers since the April 26, 2022 Karachi Confucius Institute bombing.

Claims about a mixed-gender Saddo battalion, a May 22, 2026 BLA women’s wing, and named attackers in Herof operations are group statements, not verified battlefield facts; the author treats the trend as recruitment and branding under pressure, not proof of a wider social mandate.



On 22 September 2026, the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) – a banned Baloch ethno-nationalist separatist group in Pakistan, waging an insurgency in Balochistan, allegedly from bases in Afghanistan – claimed that its newly formed all-female unit, the Karima Armed Assault Division (KAAD), carried out its first armed operation near Jusak in the Turbat tehsil (revenue unit) of Kech District in Balochistan. According to BLF spokesperson ‘major’ Gwahram Baloch, KAAD fighters ambushed a Pakistani military Action Task Force (ATF) convoy on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) Highway. The group stated that the attack damaged military vehicles and left several ATF personnel dead or injured, though it did not release specific casualty figures. At the same time, the BLF’s media wing Aashob released training footage showing more than 20 uniformed women handling heavy weapons in mountainous terrain.

In a subsequent statement demarcating KAAD’s objectives, the BLF declared that its female fighters would operate on dual fronts: militarily against the Pakistani Army, intelligence agencies and military infrastructure, and socially against patriarchy, class exploitation and what the organisation terms regressive traditions within Baloch society. The statement positions KAAD as both an operational combat formation and a deliberate ideological project. BLF portrays its female members as predominantly highly educated and politically conscious, leveraging their involvement to frame insurgency as an intellectual and political movement rather than a purely armed or tribal uprising. It further contends that women’s participation bolsters the movement’s legitimacy and helps transcend regional, tribal and sectarian divides. KAAD, named after the prominent Baloch activist Karima Baloch, a former chairperson of the Baloch Students Organisation (BSO-Azad), whose death in suspicious circumstances in Toronto, Canada, in December 2020 became a significant rallying point, is presented by the BLF as an organised unit that combines armed, political, ideological and organisational roles.


The formation of KAAD forms part of a wider strategic and political shift within the BLF in 2025-2026. For years, the group had largely avoided both suicide operations and the systematic recruitment of female fighters. This stood in contrast to the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), another Baloch ethnonationalist militant organisation, whose Majeed Brigade had first popularised high-visibility suicide attacks from 2022 onward, as well as the use of female operatives in those missions. The BLF only began employing female suicide operatives later, with its first confirmed case on November 30, 2025, and subsequently formalised this change by creating KAAD as a competitive response to BLA’s tactics. BLA’s methods had generated significant media attention, prompting the BLF leadership under Allah Nazar Baloch to adjust its approach, while also seeking to expand the group’s operational scope.

In 2025, on November 30, Zareena Rafiq, aka Tarang Maho/Trang Mahoo, associated with the BLF-formed Saddo Operational Battalion (SOB), carried out a suicide attack on the Frontier Corps (FC) headquarters in Nokundi, Chagai District of Balochistan. BLF presented this as its first use of a female suicide bomber. The attack resulted in the death of at least one FC trooper and injuries to several others, though casualty figures remain contested. The involvement of a relatively small number of Baloch women in armed and suicide operations has drawn significant attention. SOB is named after Commander Waja Sado aka Saadat Marri / Sado Marri, a veteran Baloch fighter born in 1927 who participated in earlier phases of Baloch resistance during the 1960s, 1970s and later years. He was killed on December 3, 2007, during an attack on an FC post in Kech. BLF messaging describes SOB recruits as highly motivated volunteers selected for discipline and a willingness to undertake high-risk operations. It is labelled as an evolutionary step that moves the BLF beyond traditional guerrilla tactics toward more professional, high-intensity special operations.


Although KAAD and SOB are operational units within BLF, they feature distinctly different structural frameworks and roles. Unlike KAAD, which is an exclusively female unit, SOB is not restricted to women. It includes male members and functions as an elite mixed-gender formation designed for complex, high-intensity missions.

As the South Asia Intelligence Review (SAIR) noted earlier, the participation of Baloch women in insurgent groups, including as female fidayeen (suicide) attackers, has become increasingly prominent in recent years. Women in Balochistan have been prominent in non-violent political activism over the past decade. Much of this activism has centred on issues of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, reflecting a parallel but distinct form of mobilisation within Baloch society. The first confirmed use of a female suicide bomber by a Baloch insurgent group occurred on April 26, 2022, when BLA attacked the Confucius Institute at the University of Karachi. The bombing killed five people, including three Chinese nationals, their Pakistani driver, and a security guard. In claiming responsibility, the BLA released the image and identity of the attacker, Shaari Hayat Baloch aka Bramsh, a member of the group’s Majeed Brigade suicide squad. She had joined the Majeed Brigade two years earlier.

Significantly, BLA is also actively expanding its women’s wing. On May 22, 2026, BLA publicly announced the creation of its women’s wing and released a video via its media wing, Hakkal, featuring Shaynaz Baloch as its ‘commander’. In the approximately 11-minute video, Shaynaz Baloch appears in combat gear alongside other armed women, states that she joined the organisation about seven years earlier as an ordinary member, and appeals to Baloch women and youth to join the struggle. She frames women’s participation as equal and rooted in historical Baloch tradition.

During Operation Herof 2.0, a large-scale, multi-district offensive launched by BLA across Balochistan in January-February 2026, the group heavily publicised the front-line involvement of its female cadres. In February 2026, Asifa Mengal, a 24-year-old Majeed Brigade operative, carried out a vehicle-borne suicide attack on the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) headquarters in the Nushki District of Balochistan.


Similarly, in February 2026, Hawa Baloch, a fighter on the Gwadar front in Gwadar District, recorded a final propaganda video against the Pakistani state hours before dying in combat; and Dur Jan Baloch, a militant within BLA’s specialised Fateh squad, featured in BLA media carrying weapons alongside male fighters during attacks in Nushki.

In recent years, BLA has strategically deployed highly educated women for high-impact suicide missions, exemplified by the actions of Summiya Qalandarani and Mahal Baloch. On June 24, 2023, Qalandarani, a 25-year-old Computer Science student and BLA media propagandist, executed a suicide bombing targeting a Pakistani military convoy near Chakar Azam Chowk in Turbat, killing a police constable and prompting the BLA to officially declare the “era of women’s active participation in the armed struggle.”

Building on this tactical shift, law student Mahal Baloch aka Zilan Kurd, participated in BLA’s coordinated “Operation Herof” on August 26, 2024, driving a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) directly into the gates of the FC Headquarters at Bela in Lasbela district to breach the military infrastructure.

The emergence of female suicide bombers marks a departure from traditional patterns in the Baloch insurgency. Using women enhances operational effectiveness by exploiting gendered assumptions in security protocols while expanding the recruitment base available to insurgent organisations. Sustained military operations, arrests, and targeted killings often shrink the pool of available male recruits, prompting groups to seek alternative sources of manpower. The present shift combines tactical innovation, ideological rebranding, and gendered symbolism in an effort to reposition the organisation within the increasingly competitive landscape of Baloch militancy.

KAAD is significant primarily because it may signal a tactical shift from the occasional participation of women in Baloch militancy toward a more institutionalised female combat structure. It reflects an organisational strategy shaped by the pressures of prolonged conflict. The growing presence of women in militant violence highlights the capacity of these groups to adapt, innovate, and reshape social norms to ensure their own survival.



Ruchika Kakkar, Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

Source: This article was published by SATP


About SATP
SATP, or the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) publishes the South Asia Intelligence Review, and is a product of The Institute for Conflict Management, a non-Profit Society set up in 1997 in New Delhi, and which is committed to the continuous evaluation and resolution of problems of internal security in South Asia. The Institute was set up on the initiative of, and is presently headed by, its President, Mr. K.P.S. Gill, IPS (Retd).
View all posts by SATP →





Friday, October 02, 2026

WSJ editors bury Hegseth for bizarrely offensive 'weirdo' speech: 'Has he met anyone?'

Matthew Chapman
October 1, 2026 
RAW STORY


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attends a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Department of Defense's FY27 budget request on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on April 29, 2026. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz


The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board had scorn for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's bizarre speech boasting about how his military only had "warriors," rather than "beardos," "weirdos," or slurs for transgender people.

Hegseth, wrote the board, "rolled out several good U.S. military initiatives on Wednesday, and usually the purpose of big speeches is to persuade the public of worthy ideas. Yet Mr. Hegseth seems determined to shrink his support with gratuitous potshots, and that bears on whether the Administration can boost recruitment or confront new technology in warfare."

Many of the things Hegseth talked about are decent, the board wrote, like a program for recruiting officers out of schools — even if the focus is intensely on right-wing schools like Liberty University and Hillsdale College — as well as plans to establish a four-star command for autonomous weaponry.

However, the board said, Hegseth "couldn’t resist his usual polarizing attack routine against all and sundry, and he even accused the press of 'treason' for publishing what’s leaking out of the secretary’s shop. The most remembered line of the speech will be Mr. Hegseth’s declaration that the U.S. military no longer abides 'beardos' or 'weirdos.' As a practical matter, has he met anyone in defense technology lately?"

The fact is, said the board, "voters wanted the Trump Administration to restore and protect the military’s meritocracy, after race and identity excesses in the Biden Administration," something Hegseth promises to do, but now "his shoot-first firings of general officers have exasperated even some Republican Members of Congress, and the public is losing confidence in the project as it descends into debates about testosterone levels."

Ultimately, the board concluded, "Mr. Hegseth relishes attacking opponents, and even sometimes allies, as if he’s running a political campaign. But he’s a cabinet officer who needs allies to achieve his military goals."


Hegseth mocked for 'not achieving full extension' after speech about troop fitness

Erik De La Garza
September 30, 2026 
RAW STORY


Kasie Hunt and retired Army Lt. Gen. Karen Gibson on "The Arena." (Screengrab via CNN)

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s fixation on military fitness became a punchline when a retired lieutenant general was asked to evaluate his own workout form.

CNN’s Kasie Hunt noted Wednesday that Hegseth has repeatedly stressed physical fitness standards and cited an assessment in The Atlantic that described his push-ups as more like “half-ups.”

Hunt then played several clips of Hegseth working out on camera and asked retired Army Lt. Gen. Karen Gibson whether he was performing the exercises correctly.

“The kettlebell, not so much,” Hunt joked as laughter broke out on the CNN set of her show, “The Arena.”

“The pull-up is like this, not like this. Yes? No?” Hunt asked while mimicking the movement.


Gibson agreed that Hegseth’s form appeared incomplete.


“Well, he’s not achieving full extension of his arms or the joint there,” she said.

But Gibson quickly shifted to a broader point about Hegseth’s emphasis on physical fitness.

“I think every soldier should be fit. That’s really important,” she said. “But his fixation on some specific exercises is not the quality that makes the U.S. military so incredibly lethal and powerful.”


“There are lots of other things that make a good soldier,” Gibson added.




Alarm as Hegseth gives mega MAGA donors a say in future of warfare: 'Feels different now'


Robert Davis
October 1, 2026 
RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shakes hands with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff US Air Force General Dan Caine as he returns to his seat after his remarks at a ceremony in remembrance of US military prisoners of war and those missing in action (POW/MIA) at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., US, September 18, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth alarmed some analysts Thursday after he announced he was inviting a few private citizens to collaborate with the Defense Department on the future of warfare.

Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, and Palmer Luckey, founder of drone company Anduril, have been given advisory roles in a Pentagon project about the future of war, The Guardian reported. The project, known as “Project Meridian," seeks to develop new weapons of war for different terrain ranging from outer space to subterranean.

The inclusion of private citizens in defense contracting is nothing new, but Brendan Glavin at Open Secrets noted in the report that the motley crew Hegseth has gathered raises some important questions.

“Bringing major industry players into these types of positions at the Pentagon is not something new, but what feels different now is the substantial financial support these two have, and continue to, deliver for the Republican Party,” Glavin told The Guardian.

Musk was one of the largest donors to President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, spending an estimated $250 million to help elect the president. Musk's companies have also been deeply wedded to some of the Trump administration's pet projects, such as the Department of Government Efficiency and the so-called "golden dome" missile defense project.

Luckey's company is also supported by the venture capital firm run by Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, according to the report.

Luckey has also been dubbed the "godfather of Republican fundraising on the West Coast," according to the report.

"Invitations to political fundraisers obtained by the Guardian show Luckey hosted and co-hosted events for candidates from Trump himself to Ken Calvert, Rick Scott, Mehmet Oz, Ted Cruz and others. The most recent event was on 22 August, where he and his wife co-hosted a $50,000-a-head effort to 'Keep the Senate,' and listing guests John Thune of South Dakota, Mike Rogers of Michigan, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Jon Husted of Ohio," the report reads in part.



‘Best Minds’? Hegseth Taps Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich to Lead ‘Future of Warfare’ Project

“A board loaded with defense contractors and one draft-dodging war hawk will decide the future of the US military,” said one observer. “What could possibly go wrong?”


Palmer Luckey (left), Newt Gingrich (center), and Elon Musk (right) look on during US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “State of the Force” speech—in which the trio was announced as leaders of the “future of warfare” initiative—at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia on September 30, 2026.
(Photo by Sean Parnell/X)


Brett Wilkins
Sep 30, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday that three men—none of whom have served in the military and two who make billions of dollars from it—will help lead a new Pentagon project on the “future of warfare,” even as he moves to eliminate hundreds of senior armed service leadership position, including many generals and admirals.

Hegseth unveiled Project Meridian during his “State of the Force” address at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. The 120-day initiative will examine emerging technologies that the Department of Defense believes will be critical in future warfare.

“America’s best minds” will be brought together to “reimagine what warfare will look like in the future,” Hegseth said.

To that end, the defense secretary said that “Project Meridian will be co-led by three of our nation’s best minds, Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich.”




Musk, the world’s wealthiest human, is already deeply involved in US national security infrastructure through SpaceX—the recipient of billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts—and other businesses. He was previously part of the administration as the de facto leader of the Department of Government Efficiency.

Luckey, who like Musk is a major Trump donor, is the co-founder of defense technology company Anduril Industries. Last year, he said that Anduril planned to produce “large numbers” of cruise missiles, fighter jets, and other artificial intelligence-powered weapons systems.

“If we have to fight Iran, and China, and Russia all at the same time, we are screwed,” Luckey said in pushing for more arms production.

Gingrich is a former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives who had been pushing for war with Iran since at least 2005. Like President Donald Trump, he has been accused of dodging the draft during the Vietnam War by receiving numerous deferments; in Trump’s case for bone spurs, and for Gingrich because he was a student and a father.

“Those three great Americans are going to be joined by a team of senior leaders, hand-picked private sector leaders, and subject matter experts from across our nation’s unmatched innovation, academic, and policy ecosystems,” said Hegseth—whose Senate confirmation last year was so contentious due to concerns about him being unfit for office that it required a tie-breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance.

The defense secretary also announced the creation of an Autonomous Warfare Command—or Autowarcom—“a new four-star combatant command with service-like authorities built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the joint force.”

The appointments come as Hegseth simultaneously pursues a major reduction in the military’s senior leadership. He announced Wednesday that the Pentagon would eliminate 20% of its roughly 800 general and admiral positions by January—doubling a previously announced 10% reduction. Hegseth described the cuts as necessary to eliminate “redundant force structure” and “unnecessary bureaucratic layers.”

The reductions follow the removal or early departure of more than two dozen senior military and civilian defense officials since Hegseth became defense secretary.

The contrast has drawn criticism from lawmakers and military observers, who expressed alarm at the prospect of removing experienced officers while handing an influential role in planning future war to warfare technology executives and a hawkish former lawmaker who is no longer accountable to the public.

“Interesting. A board loaded with defense contractors and one draft-dodging war hawk will decide the future of the US military,” NewBlue USA executive Marty Taylor said on social media. “What could possibly go wrong?”



Patriotic Cowboys ‘R Us


Warfighter-obsessed Pete Kegsbreath
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images



Abby Zimet
Oct 02, 2026
FURTHER 
COMMON DREAMS

Sidestepping his debacle of a war, “smug pathetic little man,” warfighter fetishist and Gen.-Patton-cosplaying clown Pete Hegseth just gave a blustering speech before troops In a “hyper-macho freak show” to announce he’s cutting forces, starting several senseless new programs, and proclaiming, “We are no longer the woke (or) weak department...No fatties, trannies, beardos, weirdos, wimps, radicals. Just warriors.” Appalled consensus on the yahoo “turning the military into a frat house”: “What a dick.”

Perhaps due to his low-rent credentials as a weekend TV host at Fox - and a history of drunkenness, adultery, sexual assault and on-the-job incompetence so sordid he needed JD’s tie-breaking vote to get his job - Hegseth has built a sloppy, fragile “Department of Defensiveness” focused on shaping a narrative and persona to his liking - one based on paranoia, distrust, dysfunction, lies and frequent purges of those deemed disloyal. From his make-up studio to his press strictures to his blunders - Signalgate, the war, its first day’s war crimes - Pete’s spent an inordinate amount of time covering his ass and overcompensating for his failures. “He’s just a true believer in way over his head, the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect,” said one DOD employee. “Generally, we consider him a joke, a deeply unqualified clown.”

Still, with men reportedly fleeing MAGA, their need to “pump up that masculine animus” is well-served by Pete’s juvenile, chest-pounding, lethality-obsessed focus on testosterone in the name of a “High-T Department of War” that has “nothing to do with science and everything to do with regressive ideas of what masculinity is.” The same idiocy fuels all the culture war malevolence: Banning books, gutting DEI initiatives - “Diversity is not our strength” - blocking promotions for women and Blacks, a “no more dudes and dresses” transphobia, and ending tenure for civilian professors at military academies ‘cause who needs to protect independent thinkers, scholars, leaders, experts from “the tyranny of a government that actively hates its critics,” the “mindset of someone who has learned nothing (from) American military failures.”

And so to another cringey, Strangelovian “State of the Force Address,” which was not a thing until a TV bobblehead took over the military and turned it into bumbling amateur-hour theater. Last year, he summoned nearly 800 generals, admirals, advisors from around the world, all smarter and higher-ranking than him, to rant about beards and “fat troops,” tell them they “kill people and break things for a living,” and prattle about a 10% cut in their numbers by “removing redundant force structure to optimize and streamline leadership.” When he paused for applause, there was only deep silence. Maybe because a Joint Chiefs chairman, two service chiefs, two intelligence directors, several generals and the better part of the Army’s senior leadership “were told to run faster by a weekend television host.”

On Wednesday, he gathered about 600 officers and enlisted members, again at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia, for another speech. In the weeks leading up to his latest dash of show business, The Wall Street Journal reported, he emailed commanders asking them to nominate troops to attend. They had to “fit certain physical standards,” he wrote, to have the proper height/weight ratio, with “impeccable grooming: ”I want central casting.“ If they were hot enough, he added, as a bonus some would have ”the opportunity“ to join him in a hot and sweaty dawn work-out at the Pentagon. Totally normal! And luckily, a camera crew was there to follow them on a chanting, banner-bearing run through D.C. To make them look even cooler, he gave them all t-shirts that read, ”This Is War.“ Or at least off-off Broadway.



Later, before a giant American flag, he dropped the hammer in a campy speech many compared to SNL’s Colin Jost doing Pete Hegseth, or Tom Cruise’s braying misogynist in Magnolia, or George C. Scott’s Gen. Patton “minus the inspiration.” Under his “less generals, more GIs” mandate - though it’s “fewer” not less - he said he was doubling the previous cut of 10% of high-ranking personnel to 20% with, wrote Tom Wellborn, “the confidence of a man who has looked at the most powerful armed force in the world and concluded its central weakness was the number of people in it who outrank a major,” what he was. Months into a disastrous war, “That is the force Pete Hegseth has built by subtraction. What it has lost is (what) a general is for, which is to be the person in the room who says no, and (he) has made sure, one firing at a time, there is nobody left in the room to say it.”

“The media calls that a purge,” blustered Hegseth, evidently expecting criticism. “I call it accountability. As usual, what the media levels as an accusation, I wear as an accomplishment.” He haughtily went on to “lay it out simply for the anti-American losers in our media...We are no longer the woke department, or the weak department. Simple translation? No fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals. Just warriors.” On coverage of the war and eight attempted suicides on the USS Lincoln, he slammed “disingenuous headlines about deployment lengths, false claims of low troop morale or flat-out propaganda as if it’s written by our adversaries.” “The information space is a battle space,” he said. “The ideological clowns are out. The patriotic cowboys are in.” Smirking, he added,.“With testosterone testing on top.” Jesus, dude.

He also announced several new programs with fancy warlike names like Fortress America and Autonomous War Command or AutoWarCom, a “four-star combatant command with service-like authorities built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities,” and “The Next Great American Base,” the first new military base in 40 years, with all 50 states “invited to bid for it like an Amazon headquarters,” and “America’s Corps of Cadets, creating new college partnerships with right-wing Liberty University and Hillsdale College, plus Louisiana State, Mississippi, Tuskegee Universities, to increase the number of ”patriotic leaders of character“ and counter ”anti-American, DEI-worshiping woke factories,“ aka the Ivy League schools Hegseth attended.

There’s the bonkers Project Meridian to study “the future of warfare,” headed by “three of our nation’s best minds” - two tech fat cats and one 83-year-old MAGA hawk - none of whom have served in the military, two of whom have made fortunes from it. Cue Elon Musk, a gonzo rocket salesman with billions in Pentagon contracts, GOP pol Newt Gingrich, who got almost as many deferments as Trump during the Vietnam War, and Palmer Luckey, MAGA donor, self-proclaimed “radical Zionist” and founder of tech company Anduril - “three great Americans to help plan the next war with three people who have never been in one,” what could possibly go wrong?“ From a military Reddit: ”Is this real?“, ”Yes master code-monkey, infosec ninja, and tech infrastructure guru Newt Gingrich age 83. Our enemies are so fuct bro!“ and ”Oh fuck this fucking Nazi-loving fuck outta here.“

There’s a new Office of Religious Affairs for a DOD “putting on the full armor of God” to “strengthen the moral, ethical and spiritual readiness of our warfighters,” aka “do the Lord’s work to improve smiting capacity,” because, “while we wage physical war, the real battle is spiritual.” (Maybe why the Pentagon’s covering up not-real casualties?) It’s “voluntary,” which skeptics say is akin to being “voluntold” to do things. Finally, as a party favor, troops were given a new 144-page “field manual” of transcripts of Hegseth speeches. Its forward is by Trump, in classic Trumpese. “As your Commander-in-Chief, I will not ask you to fight dumb Wars,” it reads. “I will unleash you to be violent, lethal and unstoppable - and I will always have your back. Godspeed, Great Warriors. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”



 YouTubewww.youtube.com

Along with other regime Nazis, crackpots and fools, theories abound as to what the fuck is wrong with Pete Hegseth. Many argue he’s afflicted with the common sickness of countless, soulless, mediocre white men who know, deep inside, they have risen further than they deserve to. Hence, the bottomless need to be subservient to a monster like Trump (who is too mad to know that) to maintain their place and value in a white guy patriarchy, to always understand “who they get to abuse, and who they are supposed to take abuse from,” and to remain within that vaunted structure, the only one where they have power and respect, by continuing to rule over those they’ve been taught are beneath them. It’s also why, conversely, they freak out when their vital slot is threatened: See Hegseth’s frantic lie detectors at any sign of leaking, mocking, saying no.

Hegseth seems particularly despised by Americans, many of whom eagerly await his war crimes trial, his impeachment,, his rapturing - hopefully first in line, though maybe behind Goebbels/Miller. The concrete damage done by his legacy - the calamitous war, hollowing of the military’s promotion chain, lethality-tinged dumbing down of its intellectual infrastructure and exploitation of those serving - will presumably take years to repair. But people hate him just as much for his personal failings: his gross unfitness and incompetence, his swaggering “Jr High Machismo,” the Nazi-adjacent arrogance of “this nose-powdering drunk,” the lying, preening chutzpah of the military’s worst-ever leader consistently “acting like a 19-year-old edgelord loser,” like “a dipshit,” “an asshole,” “an absolute tinydick in every goddamn way.”

Several truly obnoxious moments of his state-of-the-empire speech ignited that animus. His attack on media who do their job and tell the truth about him began with a lame nod to the First Amendment - “A free press is of course important” - that veered to a diatribe: “But partisan activism that intentionally smears the troops and the historic mission they are undertaking (is) anti-American. It’s sick. It’s a national betrayal. It’s treason, actually...It has to be said.” Umm, not, said America: “Secretary of Dewar’s doesn’t get he’s the only one getting smeared, not the troops,” “I love the free press until they say words I don’t like in which case I call them traitors and want them killed,” “Bro, they’re not shitting on the troops, just you,” “It’s called free speech, fucknut. The thing your troops are supposed to defend,” “The mission of our military has become historic only in the degree of its absurdity.”

Then there was a pitiful, fitness-instructor-like defense of his bullying of troops: “Telling someone to get in shape or shave or fix their uniform or start busting their ass - that’s not discrimination. That’s leadership.” Fact: Actually, it’s neither. It’s stupid, shallow, beside-the-point bullying. Many argued it’s just “being a dick” and “an asshole.” That he should “tell his boss to get in shape and start busting his ass.” That it’s weird how he “doesn’t get to the part where he actually discriminates.” That leadership is “inspiring, being an example, not getting your nation into an illegal war, losing it in days and committing war crimes.” That he’s “a drunk, vain, adulterous rapist with ridiculous sideburns.” That it’s “stunning in an awful way a man his age is so immature.” That “this motherfucker is waaay out over his skis.” And damn, more fucking patriotic cowboys is the last thing we need thanks.


How Pete's (deservedly) doingScreengrab from CNN