Tag Archives: history

Zohran Mamdani is the next New York City Mayor and the storm is coming

Zohran Mamdani is the next New York City Mayor. He is a muslim, anti-Trump, Anti-capitalist, and will make free buses for the people in New York. At the same time, he will tax the rich. Trump moved out of New York long ago. So do many other wealthy people in New York.

Not only that. More than 1 million Orthodox Jews have escaped New York. Maybe we will see more jews escape New York as a muslim is their new Mayor. Time will show. But, there is no doubt; A massive storm is coming! Put your steel helmet on and fasten your seatbelt.

On the other hand, what we see today is not something new. This is how the system works. It goes, and then it goes down again, and again, and again. The crisis in New York has nothing to do with the Mayor. This is happening all over in the West. It is the system. Not the Mayor.

The Returning Storm: Capitalism’s Crisis & the Echoes of 1848

We hear it again and again: that the system is failing large numbers of people. The working class is struggling, costs are skyrocketing, and the ladder of opportunity seems broken. That’s why many vote for socialists: they look at the system not as a solution, but as the problem. But why does capitalism still persist when it doesn’t work for everyone?

Karl Marx saw it clearly: capitalism is built on the exploitation of workers (the proletariat) by those who own and control the means of production (the bourgeoisie). The extraction of surplus value, alienation of labour, cycles of boom and bust, and rising inequality. He argued that all of it spells eventual collapse, ushering in a socialist revolution.

Maybe what we’re witnessing now is not a violent revolution with barricades and guillotines, but a democratic and social one: a shift in consciousness, a call for new economic arrangements.

A Story That Shows What’s Wrong

Imagine an old woman in Spain who has lived in her apartment for seventy years. Her home is her past, her memories, her identity. Now, an American hedge fund buys the building. Her rent shoots up far beyond what her pension covers. She’s told: “Move out or pay the price.”


What kind of capitalism is this? Where the place you’ve lived your entire life, the neighbourhood you know, becomes a profit asset to someone else, and you, the tenant, are simply a cost-to-be-cut or revenue-to-be-raised.


This isn’t small-scale displacement; it’s systemic.

According to research, private equity firms now own a significant share of the U.S. housing stock, and their business model often involves raising rents, cutting maintenance, and treating homes as profit centres.


When individuals who’ve paid their dues, who’ve worked and saved, are pushed aside so someone else can “monetize” their roof, the legitimacy of the system is damaged.

1848 and the Warning from History

Nine years ago, I wrote an article about the French Revolution, and I need to get back to that story once again. Back in February 1848 in France, the blueprint of revolt was laid bare. The monarchy of Louis Philippe, once hailed as a “Citizen King,” had drifted away from the people. Wages collapsed, food prices soared, and despair turned to anger. When the government repressed the protests, Paris erupted in barricades. The king fled, and a second French Republic was proclaimed.

The lesson is clear: when a system fails the many and protects the few, the many find a voice. When inequality is visible, persistent, and reinforced by institutions that claim neutrality, resistance builds. The revolution of 1848 was not just about a king dying. It was about legitimacy dissolving.

So, Why Do We Still Have Capitalism?

Because it works. For some.
Because markets deliver dynamism, innovation, and wealth. If measured for the few.
Because institutions decide the rules and often shield the winners.
Because alternatives are messy, unproven, and intimidating for those who benefit now.

Yet the crisis is also structural. The logic of profit demands cost-cutting, evictions, rent hikes, financialization of housing, and commodification of basic needs. When a woman who’s lived somewhere for 70 years is priced out overnight, that’s not a bug. It’s a feature of the system.

Are We on the Edge of a New Revolution?

Perhaps. Not in the storm-and-fury sense, but in the long, accumulating demand for change. When politicians like Zohran Mamdani win with promises of free buses, rent freezes, and groceries for all, the message is: the old order is brittle. The working class has been squeezed too long. The vote is a signal.

But the storm won’t vanish just with promises. The funding model matters. The rents, taxes, business flight, and investment flows. All these determine whether change can be real or become another wave of disappointment.

The Elderly Woman and the Bigger Question

When you see her story. 70 years of life, on a fixed income, facing eviction because of global capital chasing returns, you understand what’s at stake. It’s not just housing. It’s dignity. It’s the promise of stability. It’s the belief that society isn’t only for the rich.

And when capitalism no longer delivers that promise for large swathes of people, then the logic of Marx begins to look less like ideology and more like prophecy.

In 1848 they overthrew a king.
In 2025 they may overthrow the illusion. The illusion that capitalism still works for everyone.

The storm is coming

It might be messy. It might be uncomfortable. But history shows us that when systems stop working for most people, change happens.
So ask yourself:

Are we watching the death of the promise of capitalism as we knew it?
Or are we witnessing its evolution — into something fairer, more inclusive, more human?

Closing thought

In 1848, they forced the king to abdicate. Today, maybe we don’t need to kill a king. We need to kill the illusion that this system works for everyone. Change isn’t coming tomorrow. It’s already knocking at the door.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Diplomacy or Weapons as the Way to Peace?

“Every war begins with the illusion of victory. Every peace begins with the courage of dialogue. Which will we choose?”

History has already shown us the price of arrogance. Twice in the last century, the world descended into total war because nations believed they had no choice but to fight and that they had to win. Today, as leaders repeat the same words, we stand once again at the edge of disaster.

The world has already witnessed two devastating global conflicts — the First and Second World Wars. Now, many fear that we stand on the brink of a Third. The war in Ukraine rages on, while violence flares in Israel and Gaza. What is striking is that leaders on all sides declare that they must win. Even NATO’s former Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has insisted that “weapons are the way to peace.”

But have we truly learned nothing from history?

After the First World War, nations attempted to chart a new course. The Treaty of Versailles of 1919 and the creation of the League of Nations were intended to establish an international order in which diplomacy, rather than war, would resolve conflicts. The idea was collective security: dialogue, negotiation, and the prevention of another catastrophic war.

And yet, within two decades, the world was plunged into an even deadlier conflict. The League of Nations failed because nationalism, greed, and great-power rivalry proved stronger than the will to compromise. Diplomacy was drowned out by ambition, unresolved grievances, and economic instability.

It feels eerily similar today. We see frozen conflicts, festering grievances, and leaders proclaiming that victory — and only victory — is the only acceptable outcome. But as history shows, not everyone can win.

Think of a football match: two teams, both determined to be victorious. Only one side can claim the win after 90 minutes. But wars do not have a clock. Wars end only when destruction, exhaustion, or overwhelming force brings them to a halt. In the past, that sometimes meant entire armies fighting to the last man. In the 20th century, it meant the atomic bomb. It was not diplomacy that ended the Second World War — it was unprecedented violence.

This raises an unsettling truth: humans often respond more to fear than to reason. Diplomacy, without urgency, is easily dismissed. But when fear peaks — when cities are destroyed, when civilians suffer, when nuclear annihilation looms — only then do leaders suddenly discover the language of negotiation.

If history repeats itself, then humanity may once again stumble toward self-destruction. The tragic irony is that while weapons may bring silence to the battlefield, they rarely bring true peace. Peace, lasting peace, requires the courage to pursue diplomacy before fear takes control.

Because if “weapons are the way to peace,” we may find that peace comes only after there is nothing left to save.

Fear, it seems, is the actual driver of humanity. Diplomacy is too often dismissed until it is too late. And when diplomacy fails, fear and destruction rule.

History is clear: bombs may end wars, but they do not prevent them from happening. Dialogue does.

Diplomacy is not a sign of weakness – it is a sign of wisdom. If history teaches us anything, it is this: bombs can end wars, but only dialogue can prevent them. The choice is ours, and the clock is ticking.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

“Is Hate Speech Really Free Speech?”

Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights, yet it’s also one of the most misunderstood. Where do we draw the line between free expression and harassment? When mocking becomes humiliation, and jokes turn into attacks, dignity is lost. And dignity, just like freedom, is a human right.

Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in democratic societies. It allows people to express thoughts, ideas, and beliefs publicly without fear of government censorship or punishment. This includes spoken words, written expression, art, and the exchange of information.

But freedom of speech is not absolute. A central question remains: Is hate speech really free speech, or does it cross into something else, harassment, abuse, and the violation of human dignity?

(Picture: Reflection: When Disrespect Becomes the Norm

The public treatment of leaders is a mirror of society’s values. Since 2016, we have seen how mockery and humiliation, like the “Trump balloon,” are used not to challenge policies, but to strip a person of dignity. Whether or not one agrees with Trump, the method of ridicule says more about us than about him.

When humiliation replaces respectful disagreement, it weakens the foundations of democracy. It creates a culture where harassment becomes normalized, spreading to schools, workplaces, and everyday life. If the West tolerates public harassment at the highest levels, how can we hope to eliminate bullying and harassment among teenagers?

Freedom of speech is not a license to abuse. A society that wants to survive and grow stronger must defend both freedom and dignity, because without dignity, freedom eventually collapses.)

The Limits of Free Speech

While free speech is widely protected, democratic societies do place boundaries on it. According to the First Amendment in the U.S. and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, restrictions are lawful when necessary to protect:

  • Public order
  • National security
  • Public health
  • The rights and reputations of others

Categories such as incitement to violence, true threats, defamation, obscenity, and fraud are not protected speech. In other words, freedom of speech is not a license to abuse.

When Speech Becomes Harassment

Harassment goes beyond free expression. It is a form of discrimination that involves unwanted, offensive, intimidating, or humiliating behavior. Examples include:

  • Derogatory jokes, racial or ethnic slurs
  • Unwanted comments about religion or appearance
  • Pressure for sexual favors
  • Offensive graffiti, cartoons, or images

Harassment can take different forms:

  1. Verbal or written (insults, threats, degrading comments)
  2. Physical (unwanted contact, intimidation)
  3. Visual (symbols, gestures, offensive imagery)

When harassment becomes repetitive, it turns into bullying, often leaving lasting emotional scars. At its worst, harassment and humiliation constitute psychological abuse and may even lead to criminal charges.

Freedom of Speech vs. Human Dignity

Here lies the conflict: freedom of speech is a right, but human dignity is also a right. Dignity means recognizing the intrinsic value of every human being and treating them with respect.

Mocking or humiliating people, whether powerful leaders or ordinary individuals, strips them of their dignity. It erodes respect. And if harassment is normalized at the highest levels of media and comedy, how can we expect young people in schools to learn respect and kindness?

A Question for Media and Comedians

Since 2016, comedians and media outlets have mocked, criticized, and even harassed the most powerful man on the planet. Some say it’s fair satire; others see it as relentless humiliation. But here’s the real issue: if harassment is accepted at the top of society, how can it be eliminated in classrooms, workplaces, or online communities?

The principle is simple: free speech must not become a weapon to degrade others.

Respect as the Foundation

Every person, regardless of power, status, or circumstance, deserves:

  • Respect: showing esteem for their humanity
  • Dignity: recognizing their inherent worth
  • Equality: treating all people fairly

Speech that destroys these values is not freedom—it’s abuse.

The Role of Platforms

In the digital era, platforms amplify speech through Section 230 protections in U.S. law, which shield platforms from being sued for user content. However, the responsibility ultimately lies with the individual: what you post online is your responsibility.

Social media can either become a space for respectful dialogue or a weapon of harassment. The choice belongs to us.

Conclusion

Free speech is vital to democracy, but it comes with responsibility. Hate speech, harassment, and humiliation are not the same as free expression; they are violations of dignity.

The way forward is not to silence voices, but to promote respect, reject harassment, and recognize that freedom without responsibility can lead to abuse.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics