r/DeepStateCentrism

New to the subreddit? Start here.

1. This is the brief. We just post whatever here.
2. You can post and comment outside of the brief as well.
3. You can subscribe to ping groups and use them inside and outside of the brief. Ping groups cover a range of topics. Click here to set up your preferred PING groups.
4. Are you having issues with pings, or do you want to learn more about the PING system? Check out our user-pinger wiki for a bunch of helpful info!
5. The brief has some fun tricks you can use in it. Curious how other users are doing them? Check out their secret ways here.
6. We have an internal currency system called briefbucks that automatically credit your account for doing things like making posts. You can trade in briefbucks for various rewards. You can find out more about briefbucks, including how to earn them, how you can lose them, and what you can do with them, on our wiki.

The Theme of the Week is: Assimilation, asymmetry, and assembly.

Welcome to the July edition! Happy birthday, America. If you’re new here, read below for an introduction. If you’re old, it’s good to see you!

Here’s the place to share whatever you’re currently reading and anything notable that you’ve read recently. Whether it’s for class, work, or pleasure, it doesn’t matter. Books, articles, stories, poems, are all fair game! Anything that doesn’t have its own dedicated post already. 

Here is your chance to nerd out in friendly company. We hope you’ll find some good recommendations here!

After recent attacks that retook the city of Kidal in Northern Mali, the FLA-JNIM coalition of fighters have launched a renewed offensive, with a seeming emphasis on the town of Anefis, also in Northern Mali. Russian and Malian government forces appear to be currently besieged in their encampment in Anefis, and reportedly a relief convoy setting out from Gao has been repeatedly ambushed, with the Russians/Malians losing an Mi-24 helicopter gunship and a number of other vehicles.

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of profit-driven media catalyzed political polarization in America.
It caused a historical shift from a regulated broadcast era—where stations were legally required to present diverse viewpoints—to a modern landscape dominated by partisan outrage on talk radio, cable news, and social media.
Not long after followed the telecommunications act of 1996 and the 'homogenization of radio' , which led to the consolidation of most of the US media under the boot of a few mega corporations.
Media companies transitioned from informing the public to monetizing anger, using psychological manipulation and algorithms to keep audiences engaged. While I note that the original doctrine was sometimes weaponized by politicians, its absence allowed for an "attention economy" that rewards conspiratorial thinking over civil debate.
Ultimately, the pursuit of commercial engagement has replaced the media's former obligation to serve the public interest

A look at how a think tank closely aligned with the Ministry of State Security views the state of US-PRC competition.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone but it's a reminder of the kind of ruler that Xi is.

What can we expect from the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara? What do alliance members hope to get out of this meeting?

What promises does the nation make? What does it have to offer? What are you proud of?

Are you ashamed in some way? Is there some special stain on America?

Thought this might be of interest to this sub. It’s the 20th anniversary of the Euston Manifesto, which was an attempt to have a home on political left/ centre left which was free of antisemitism, opposed anti-Americanism and terror and was against cultural relativism. Lot of commentators in UK we would now call centrists were involved.

Its probably not really successful - not lest because its not widely known but its interesting nonetheless. Hope its interesting for anyone that hasn’t heard of it

https://eustonmanifesto.org/the-euston-manifesto/

Senate Democrats moved June 25 to propose more than tripling the current federal minimum wage, introducing legislation that would raise it to $25 an hour over the next five years.

The "Living Wage for All Act," led by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, would phase in the increase based on company size and eliminate the tipped minimum wage, underscoring an aggressive push by progressives to address rising costs as the federal rate has remained at $7.25 since 2009.

"There is no reason that somebody should go to work full-time in this country and not be able to pay their bills," Murphy said at a news conference. "It is time that everybody who works makes a dignified wage."

Under the proposal, companies with 500 or more workers would have until 2031 to reach a $25 hourly minimum wage, while smaller businesses would have until 2038 to meet the same threshold. The bill would also eliminate lower wages for restaurant servers and other workers who rely on tips.

The legislation comes as economic concerns remain top of mind for many Americans. About 60% disapprove of President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy, according to a recent PBS News/NPR/Marist poll, and 45% say they are not planning to take a summer vacation in 2026.

The Senate effort builds on a broader push among Democrats to raise pay.

In April, a group of House Democrats led by Reps. Delia Ramirez of Illinois and Analilia Mejia of New Jersey introduced similar legislation seeking to raise the federal minimum wage to $25 an hour.

The federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 an hour since 2009, following a three-step increase under the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007.

While the federal rate has not changed in more than a decade, 30 states and Washington, DC, now have minimum wages above that level.

New to the subreddit? Start here.

1. This is the brief. We just post whatever here.
2. You can post and comment outside of the brief as well.
3. You can subscribe to ping groups and use them inside and outside of the brief. Ping groups cover a range of topics. Click here to set up your preferred PING groups.
4. Are you having issues with pings, or do you want to learn more about the PING system? Check out our user-pinger wiki for a bunch of helpful info!
5. The brief has some fun tricks you can use in it. Curious how other users are doing them? Check out their secret ways here.
6. We have an internal currency system called briefbucks that automatically credit your account for doing things like making posts. You can trade in briefbucks for various rewards. You can find out more about briefbucks, including how to earn them, how you can lose them, and what you can do with them, on our wiki.

The Theme of the Week is: Assimilation, asymmetry, and assembly.

Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.

Polish security sources have also not ruled out a more conventional attack, such as a small ground incursion of Russian soldiers across Nato’s eastern flank.

According to Onet’s security sources, provocation scenarios could include a drone attack on critical infrastructure, such as power stations, or simulated air strikes that would force Poland to activate its air defence systems.

One Polish intelligence source said that in the most extreme scenario, a “hybrid attack in the border region” could occur.

The same source said an armed incursion involving Russian or Belarusian soldiers was conceivable.

This could be presented by Russia as an accidental straying into Polish territory because of a GPS failure, or as a dubious rescue mission to retrieve a helicopter suffering from a malfunction.

Russia would count on the fact that, instead of opening fire on Russian or Belarusian soldiers in such a situation, Poland would be forced by the US to negotiate with Russia or Belarus rather than respond forcefully, Polish sources told Onet.

A scenario in which the Russians would withdraw from Poland as a result of those negotiations, rather than because they were forced to do so by military means, would be seen as a win from Moscow’s perspective.

An end to Western support for Ukraine could even be a central Russian demand of such talks in return for withdrawal from Poland.

The US “systematically informs Poland about ever-new Russian plans for a conventional attack on Nato’s eastern flank, from which Poland is by no means excluded”, said a source close to the Polish president.

A second source, an ambassador to one of Poland’s allies in the Nato alliance, also confirmed that a provocation in one of the Baltic states and/or Poland is a serious risk, as did a third source in the Polish defence ministry.

A fourth Baltic security source confirmed to The Telegraph that such plans were under discussion in Moscow. Russia may then attempt to claim the provocation was carried out by Ukraine afterwards.

Any ground-based attack by Russia could be staged either from Kaliningrad, the Russian exclave to the north of Poland which hosts nuclear weapons, or from Belarus to the east.

Such methods are Russia’s only realistic means of staging a provocation. Because its forces are tied up in Ukraine, it lacks the capacity to wage full-scale war on Nato allies.

While Poland remains a staunch security ally of Ukraine, relations have become strained in recent months because of differing views on Second World War-era history and the two countries’ competing farming industries. It is feared Moscow may seek to widen that rift.

The Telegraph also understands that a recent naval exercise in Latvia, in which the US navy and marines played a central role, was designed to remind Moscow that any attack on the eastern flank would be a de facto attack on American troops.

In a worst-case scenario for Nato, Russia’s aim would be to undermine Polish sovereignty, expose Nato as a paper tiger, and force the withdrawal of Western support for Ukraine – all without triggering a conventional war with the alliance.

A member of the Polish ministry of defence’s leadership confirmed to Onet the possibility of a Russian provocation, but noted that Poland had already conducted exercises aimed at warning Moscow of a devastating Nato response.

From Moscow’s perspective, a provocation directed at Poland would be a better option than a provocation against one of the Baltic states, European security sources said.

Onet’s sources stressed that any Russian provocation would not resemble a “classic” or conventional war, and that Moscow had not yet fully committed to conducting one.

Poland shares borders with Belarus, a Russian puppet state controlled by Alexander Lukashenko, an ally of Vladimir Putin, and the exclave of Kaliningrad.

The Telegraph understands that Nato could respond to any Russian provocation with direct attacks on Kaliningrad, which has been cited as a potential target by Holger Neumann, the German air force chief.

Last month, the head of the Luftwaffe told The Telegraph that Germany would defend “every inch” of Nato territory including Poland if it were forced to act defensively.

He singled out Kaliningrad, St Petersburg, which hosts key naval assets, the Kola Peninsula, where Moscow is amassing nuclear weapons, and the Black Sea – home to Russia’s Black Sea fleet – as potential targets in the event of a conflict.

VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican responded aggressively Thursday to a traditionalist group that consecrated bishops without the pope's consent, declaring the Society of St. Pius X had formally broken with the Catholic Church. It excommunicated its bishops and priests, and warned its faithful that they too face the harshest sanctions in the church.
By declaring a schism and extending excommunications to potentially thousands of Catholics, the Vatican's doctrine office went above and beyond the minimum sanctions foreseen by the church's canon law to respond to the consecrations Wednesday of four new bishops.

The society, known by its acronym SSPX, celebrates the ancient Latin Mass and opposes the modernizing reforms of the Catholic Church, which it considers to be rife with heresies and errors. While a fringe movement on the Catholic right, the SSPX has been a thorn in the Vatican's side for five decades because it claims to be even more Catholic than the Holy See.

During a ritual-filled, five-hour Mass on Wednesday at its seminary in Econe, Switzerland, the SSPX consecrated four new bishops in direct defiance of Leo, who had urged the group to hold off for the sake of church unity. An estimated 15,500 people and their children attended, a sign that the SSPX has plenty of supporters who came from around the world knowing full well they were defying Rome.

The harshness of the response suggested that after trying to negotiate with the SSPX, the Vatican under Pope Leo XIV had had enough.

Vatican decree targeted bishops and faithful

In a decree, the Vatican excommunicated the four new bishops and the two existing SSPX bishops who participated in the ceremony. It declared the consecrations a "schismatic act" and that the society itself had created a schism, or intentional rupture with the church.

It declared SSPX priests - who number about
750 - to be schismatic, and therefore excommunicated, and invalidated the sacraments of confession and marriage that they administer. The Vatican warned the faithful to stop going to SSPX Masses, decreeing that
"those who adhere formally" to the society are schismatic and excommunicated.

The Vatican said that applied to people who are members of the SSPX lay branch and those who
"regularly attend" SSPX Masses and formally share its doctrinal positions. The sanctions don't apply to Catholic faithful who attend SSPX Masses "just for liturgical or spiritual reasons" or those who go but accept the pope's authority and teaching.

The SSPX doesn't have an exact count but estimates around 400,000-600,000 people attend its Masses, meaning Thursday's decree could potentially involve the excommunications of thousands of rank-and-file SSPX faithful.

The sanctions, especially those targeting the priests, the faithful and the sacraments they can receive, were particularly harsh and reversed concessions the Vatican had granted the SSPX in recent years as part of its outreach to bring the group back under Rome's wing.

Marc-André Mabillard, media manager for the society, expressed shock at the severity of the sanctions and called them "unjust."

"For us, this excommunication extended to the faithful is brutal. It's not what we expect from a father to whom we refer every day," he told The Associated Press. "We are told, 'You claim to have the truth.' Fine. I'm just saying that we certainly have our flaws, but our main flaw today is having a leader who doesn't want to communicate with us.
And that's terrible."

The Vatican's doctrine chief, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, met in February with the SSPX superior, the Rev. Davide Pagliarani, and proposed a dialogue. But Pagliarani asked instead to meet with Leo, who declined but wrote a letter Tuesday begging the SSPX to call off the consecrations.

The group's founders opposed reforms

French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the
SSPX in 1970 in opposition to the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Among other things, the 1960s meetings known as Vatican II revolutionized the church's relations with other Christians, Jews and people of other faiths and allowed Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular rather than Latin.

Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without papal consent in 1988. The Vatican promptly excommunicated Lefebvre and the four bishops and declared the consecrations a "schismatic act."

Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 lifted the excommunications as part of his yearslong outreach to the group. But the SSPX today has no legal standing in the church and with Thursday's decree is declared to be in schism.

The consecrations had posed a crisis for Leo because the American pope has stressed the need for church unity. He has reached out especially to the conservative and traditionalist wing of the church that was in many ways alienated during the Pope Francis pontificate.

The Vatican responded so aggressively in part because the group poses something of a threat by representing a parallel, ultra-Catholic, pre-Vatican II church that has grown in the decades since its original break from Rome. While representing a fraction of the 1.4-billion strong Catholic faithful, the SSPX now has six bishops, 751 priests, 264 seminarians, 145 religious brothers, 88 oblates and 250 religious sisters representing 50 nationalities, according to SSPX statistics.

A key Vatican Il document rejected by the SSPX is one that, among other things, deplored antisemitism in every form and repudiated the
"deicide" charge that blamed Jews as a people for Christ's death. The Vatican crafted the document as the church reckoned with the role traditional Christian teaching had played in the Holocaust.

The SSPX today says it rejects accusations that it ever taught or practiced antisemitism, and the SSPX distanced itself from one of the original 1988 bishops, the late Bishop Richard Williamson, when he denied the Holocaust.

Traditionalists in communion with Rome respond

Traditionalists in communion with Rome respond
In a note accompanying the decree, the Vatican said it was willing, "like a caring mother," to welcome any SSPX faithful back into the fold. It laid out specific procedures for SSPX priests and faithful, by signing two forms professing the faith, promising fidelity to the pope and accepting the core teaching of Vatican II.

While the SSPX is out of communion with Rome, plenty of other Catholic traditionalists who love the Latin Mass remain in communion with the Holy See. They had been watching carefully to see how Leo's Vatican would respond to the SSPX consecrations and were surprised by the harshness of Thursday's sanctions.

"He's brought the hammer down," said Joseph Shaw, head of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, which is in communion. Shaw expressed sympathy with the plight of ordinary SSPX faithful, saying the invalidation of marriages especially is going to cause "massive" pastoral problems. "It's a sad day."

Luigi Casalini, of the blog Messa in Latino, meaning Latin Mass, said the excommunication of the bishops was correct because canon law provides for it. But the extension of the excommunications to SSPX priests and faithful was "an act of unusual severity," he said, while saying the invalidation of SSPX sacraments was problematic.

One of the thousands of worshippers at Wednesday's consecrations was Allison Isermann, a 24-year-old from St. Marys, Kansas, a small town with a large SSPX church. She grew up as a society member and strongly defended its teaching in opposition to Vatican II, specifically its openness to those of other faiths.

"It is actually very anti-Catholic and anti-charitable to affirm others and their beliefs when it is our duty and our mission to actually convert and sanctify the world and to restore all things in Christ," she said.

Next Friday we will be teaming up with 20+ other subreddits to help raise funds for UkraineAidOps, a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity run by an international group of volunteers who have been supplying Ukraine’s frontline with life‑saving equipment. Their support includes protective gear (helmets, plates, anti‑thermal suits), medical supplies, reconnaissance and heavy‑lift drones, and unmanned ground vehicles for casualty evacuation.

Since the spring of 2022, they have worked with numerous combat formations, including the legendary 82nd Air Assault Brigade and 93rd Mechanized Brigade, and have even supported the operation in Kursk.

In light of recent events (including the self immolation of a Tibetan man near the UN), it's worth revisiting this CFR explainer. In a nutshell, the new law pushes Xi thought about aggressive assimilation into law, mandatory education in Mandarin, liability for institutions that fail to teach love of China, CCP & Chinese people. It may possibly be used to justify relocations and targeting of overseas Chinese.

A more recent backgrounder from CNN here

Taipei Times article

On March 12, China’s legislature adopted the Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress (Chinese; English translation), a sweeping new statute that codifies Beijing’s approach toward China’s 56 officially recognized ethnic groups. Substantively, the law enshrines a decades-long shift towards aggressive assimilationist policies. Structurally, it reflects a deepening merger of Party ideology and state law that is becoming increasingly prevalent under Xi Jinping.

This new law is the culmination of a policy trajectory that has been building for over a decade, dating back to the 2014 Central Ethnic Work Conference. Under Xi, Beijing is steering away from the post-1949 legal framework of nominal ethnic autonomy (albeit under tight Party control) imported from the Soviet Union. In its place, officials have steadily been pivoting towards what scholars have termed “second-generation ethnic policies”—an aggressive assimilationist approach that emphasizes a common Chinese national identity over accommodation of ethnic differences. Provincial and municipal authorities across China have enacted a wave of local “ethnic unity and progress” regulations in recent years, such as those in Xinjiang (2015) or Inner Mongolia (2021). The new national legislation elevates this approach to the level of a national statute governing all of China.

The new law’s core concept is captured in the term zhulao (铸牢) – to “forge” or “cast” metal – and its instruction that “forging the communal consciousness of the Chinese nation” is core to the Party’s ethnic policies. As James Leibold has pointed out, this phrasing reflects a hardening of Beijing’s political line under Xi Jinping – explicitly written into the Party’s Charter at the 19th Party Congress in 2017 – aimed at “melting” subnational and ethnic identities into a shared collective one.

This is a sharp departure from the framework of the 1984 Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law, which explicitly provided for education in minority languages and warned against majoritarian (i.e., Han) chauvinism in an effort to reset ethnic relations in the wake of the Cultural Revolution. In contrast, the new 2026 law has no such warning, mandates pre-school education in Mandarin, directs government authorities and private firms to “give prominence” to the display of Chinese characters over minority languages in public settings, and instructs them to promote the “forging of national identity” as a component of all official work on families and family education.

Naturally, Beijing’s assimilationist pivot risks worsening ethnic tensions in China. Efforts to roll out similar policies in Inner Mongolia back in 2020 (including ramping up Chinese-medium instruction in elementary schools) generated widespread citizen protests and boycotts, followed by a purge of ethnic Mongolian Party and government officials viewed as insufficiently committed to Beijing’s new line.

Apart from its substance, the new ethnic unity law is also notable for its structure. As the legal scholar Changhao Wei has observed, two features of the text are highly unusual. It opens with a narrative preamble—a device used in only three other PRC statutes in over four decades. And core chapters are organized around political slogans directly lifted from Xi Jinping’s ethnic work doctrine, rather than the functional legal categories that are standard in Chinese legislation.

This parallels a broader trend: the steady blurring of the boundary between Party regulations and state law. As political scientist Holly Snape has documented, Beijing is steadily constructing a comprehensive network of Party regulations that increasingly reaches beyond the Party itself to regulate state and society. On the one hand, this process has involved the importation of quasi-legal mechanisms within the Party’s own regulatory system, such as the introduction of filing and review mechanisms to verify whether regulations issued by lower-level Party organs are compliant with Xi’s personal political doctrine. But on the other, it is leading Party ideological practices to steadily “seep into state law.” And the newly issued ethnic unity law is a clear example of that latter trend, with the top leader’s specific ideological formulations being used as the statute’s organizing skeleton. Taken together, both the substance and structure of the new ethnic unity law point in the same direction. China’s reform-era legal institutions and practices – the framework of nominal ethnic autonomy, and the conventions that maintained some degree of separation between Party and state – are steadily eroding as the country moves yet deeper into the counter-reform era.