Absolutely to be read as a direct continuation of Part 10; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2025/11/lets-all-go-to-movies-pt10.html
As I find myself finally arriving at my point, after a 100 page 20,000 word preamble. I think it's fair to say that I'm Still Here (2024) allows us to discuss a wide range of very big topics.
Obviously it explores the issue of Women aging within the Entertainment Industry. How they used to be forced to play characters old enough to be their Mothers then suddenly disappeared when they reached Perimenopause, around 40-50 years old.
With Pedro Pascal having fled Chile during Operation Condor I'm Still Here also touches on the issue of Transgenderism and Transgender activism. Pedro Pascal's very vocal Transgender activism being driven by his Transgender sibling Lux Pascal. Pedro Pascal is currently probably most well known for the TV show; "The Last of Us" (2023-Present) in which he plays a sort of Father figure to Bella Ramsey's character. Bella Ramsey is openly Gay and has openly explored her Gender-Identity. These attempts to erase Bella Ramsey's Lesbianism by making it a question of Gender-Identity could well be the result of Pedro Pascal's overbearing Transgender activism. Something which might be worth bearing in mind if you watch Season 2 of The Last of Us.
I think that the way that I'm Still Here's Oscars chances were torpedoed by scandal were part of that debate of how far storytellers can and should go in telling other people's stories. Through "September 5" (2024) this was a big theme of Awards Season 2025. Whether The Super Bowl 2025 went too far in interfering with the Genocidal war Hamas imposed on Israel. In attempting to explain what the Kibbutz's are that Hamas attacked in launching its Genocidal war I compared them to the community depicted in The Last of Us which features heavily in Season 2. So referencing Pedro Pascal and Season 2 of The Last of Us allows you to go into a lot of detail of Hamas' Genocidal war. I thought the big Golem-style Zombie was a nice touch, particularly if it was created by A.I assisted computer-generated visual effects.
The reason why Pedro Pascal had to flee Chile was because his uncle, Andrés Pascal Allende, was the leader of the Revolutionary Left Movement (Movimento de Izquierda Revolucionaria/MIR). A terrorist group sponsored by Communist China and Communist Cuba. So it had the same sponsors who created the myth of "Palestine" during The War of Attrition (1967-1973). A period that ended with Cuba's defeat at the hands of Israel during The Yom Kippur War (1973). So you would expect Pedro Pascal's bullsh*t detector to be more finely tuned than most when it comes to the lies Hamas fanboys tell.
Pedro Pascal also had to flee Chile because his great-uncle is Salvador Allende, the President deposed in The 1973 Coup d'état. As part of his Chilean Way To Socialism Salvador Allende established "Project Cybersyn." A centralised computer-based decision making system with economic information being provided to it through the nationwide "Cybernet" system. If A.I has existed in the 1970's then I don't doubt that Salvador Allende would have made Project Cybersyn an A.I assisted centralised computer-based decision making system. I can't help but wonder whether "Cybernet" was the inspiration for the "Skynet" A.I system at the heart of the "Terminator" movie universe, starting with "The Terminator" (1984). So referencing Salvador Allende's Chile certainly allows you to discuss Artificial Intelligence (A.I).
At around 18:15 on 27/11/25 (UK date) I have to wonder whether I'll be able to pick this up on Monday now.
Edited at around 17:40 on 2/12/25 (UK date) to tidy the above and copy & paste;
Totalitarian Capitalism: The main action of I'm Still Here occurs during The Fifth Brazilian Republic (1964-1985) which itself happened during The Cold War (1954-1991). The saw the Capitalist First World pitted against the Communist Second World. The main battle ground being the Third World; nations which had not gone through Industrialisation so lacked the economic and political activity to fit into either the First or Second World. At the start of its Fifth Republic Brazil had only just Industrialised enough to no longer count as part of the Third World. Many of the nations which surrounded in it Latin America were still Third World nations.
Although it objected to Capitalism the Communist Second World did not object to money. People still worked in jobs to earn money which they then used to buy things. The difference was that in the Communist Second World the Government or; "State" controlled all aspects of the economy. It decided what all the factories made and who they employed, along with what all the shops sold and at what price they sold it and to whom. What Communism really objected to was what Karl Marx called The Capitalist Mode of Production. In which those with large amounts of money (capital) could set up a business and make what they liked. Whether they'd be able to sell it, to whom and for how much would be decided by Markets. Essentially anybody with money deciding what they want to buy and for how much.
So in many ways the division of The Cold War was actually between the Libertarian First World and the Totalitarian Second World.
The Cold War ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Russian-led Soviet Union. The predominately Eastern European nations which made up that Soviet Union then adopted First World Capitalism.
However the type of Communism at play in Latin America during The Cold War was not the Marxist-Leninist Communism of Russia and the Soviet Union. Instead it was the version of Communism that was promoted by Che Guevara and Cuba which was based on the Communism of China. When Chairman Mao Zedong led the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to victory in The Chinese Civil War (1927-1949) China had, for the most part, not undergone Industrialisation. So it didn't really have any of the Urban Industrial workers, the; "Proletariat" which Marxist-Leninist Communism fetishised. So instead Chairman Mao's type of Communism focused on the; "Peasant," Rural Agricultural workers often engaged in no economic activity beyond subsistence farming; growing food to feed themselves and their families. The economic situation in China was similar to the economic situation in Cuba and Latin America, so it was this Chinese version of Communism; Maoism which became popular in the region.
Chairman Mao Zedong died in 1976 and, after a chaotic succession, was replaced as China's leader by Deng Xiaoping in 1978. Deng Xiaoping had a very different vision for Chinese Communism than Mao Zedong. Early followers of Karl Marx decided that Communist Revolution would occur in two stages; "Two-Stage Theory." The first stage being Capitalism making life so unbearable for Urban Workers that they would revolt. That revolt would lead to Revolution ushering in Communism, the second stage. Deng Xiaoping decided that rather than fetishising Peasants China needed to let them become Urbanised Industrial workers to pursue this Primary Stage of Communism. The mechanism through which to do this would be Capitalist Markets. As Deng Xiaoping put it; "It doesn't matter whether a Cat is yellow, white or black. If it catches mice, then it is a good Cat." A fun play on words, even in a complex tonal language "Mao" sounds a lot like "Māo" - the Mandarin word for; "Cat."
Deng Xiaoping's reforms actually went a long way in proving Two-Stage Theory. By 1989 the Peasants had become the Proletariat and then become the Urban Bourgeoisie who then revolted. The only problem was that The 1989 Democracy Movement wasn't revolting to overthrow the Donatário-style Capitalist oppressors. They were revolting to overthrow the oppressors of the Chinese Communist Party. This led to Deng Xiaoping being deposed in an internal Communist Party coup and The 1989 Democracy Movement being violently crushed, most famously at Tiananmen Square. It ushered in a new Social Contract between the people of China and the Chinese Communist Party. Capitalism controlled by the Chinese Communist Party would provide the Chinese people with material luxuries which would serve as compensation for the Chinese Communist Party repressing the Chinese people.
This model of Totalitarian Capitalism or Authoritarian Capitalism which emerged in China at the end of The Cold War was actually similar to the situation during Brazil's Fifth Republic. Despite the Totalitarian, Authoritarian oppression touched on in I'm Still Here the Military Dictatorship of Brazil's Fifth Republic was, genuinely, widely popular. There are still plenty of Brazilians who lived through it who will get angry with you if you criticise it.
In part this is because the oppression has been substantially overplayed in Communist Propaganda. Groups like the Palmares Armed Revolutionary Vanguard (Vanguarda Armada Revolucionáira Palmares/VAR Palmares) completely erase their violence while playing up the violence of the Brazilian Military. Even working from A.I translations of the original Portuguese it's easy to spot the lies and lunatic conspiracy theories which are the hallmarks of Socalism. While I'm not arguing in favour of The Years of Lead (1969-1974) the real horrors of Operation Condor were perpetrated by Chile and Argentina.
However the main reason for the Military Dictatorship's popularity is that it was incredibly successful in doing what Karl Marx only theorised about doing in Two-Stage Theory; Allowing Peasants to become Urban workers and then Bourgeoisies, throwing off the oppression of the Donatário. Many saw the chance to live in modern buildings with amenities like indoor plumbing, electricity and refrigeration to be ample compensation for people like Rubens Paiva and their tedious lectures disappearing.
A year after the end of The Cold War the US political scientist Francis Fukuyama published the book; "The End of History and The Last Man Standing" (1992). In it he argued that the great ideological divisions which had shaped Human history had come to an end. Ideological divisions such as between Christianity and Islam in The Crusades (1095-1291), the division between Christianity and Science in The Age of Enlightment of the 17th and 18th Century, the division between Capitalism and Communism in The Cold War. Instead there was now only one ideology able to say; "I'm Still Here!" and all Humans were now united around it. Fukuyama argued that Last Man Standing was the Western Liberal Democracy of the Capitalist First World.
Initially it looked as though Fukuyama's theory was correct. The number of Capitalist Liberal Democracies grew steadily in the decade or so after the end of The Cold War. Although that probably had something to do with NATO smashing Eastern Europe into lots of little countries and then calling the resulting cantons Democracies. Then from around 2005 onwards the number of Capitalist Liberal Democracies stopped growing. Some have even described it as a; "Democratic Recession." The system that is growing globally now is the Totalitarian Capitalism of post-1989 China and Brazil's Fifth Republic. It seems that not only wasn't Capitalist Liberal Democracy the Last Man Standing at the end of The Cold War it was defeated to the point that the nations of the Capitalist First World now seem to be the drivers of Totalitarian Capitalism. Much to the alarm of nations like China.
This is something which was most clearly on display during The Pandemic That Never Was (2020). In response to a Virus which has been with us throughout all of Human history and continues to be with us now governments across the supposedly Libertarian First World literally imprisoned all of their citizens within their homes. Only allowing them to leave on condition that they provided detailed information about everywhere they went and everyone they met in the form of a Digital Vaccine Passport/ID. Even the old Communist Second World only required exit visas at national borders.
These supposedly Libertarian First World governments also took almost complete control of the economy. While the inmates could order things from the commissary it was the government, rather than jobs, which provided them with the money to do so and the government which paid the people making and selling those material luxuries. Some people even had to suffer the government forcing food parcels on them. They were no longer allowed to decide what they were going to have for dinner. The government had decided for them.
While we're all still pretending the vaccines we had to take to obtain our Vaccine Passports and exit visas made the Virus go away governments across the supposedly Libertarian First World seem to be looking for new ways to totally control their populations. Within the context of an awards show for movies a particularly relevant example of this would be the UK's Online Safety Act (2023).
At around 18:30 on 2/12/25 (UK date) I'm going to need a moment to get my head around that.
Edited at around 18:10 on 4/12/25 (UK date) to tidy all of the above and copy & paste;
The Online Safety Act (2023) places an obligation on all websites available in the UK to protect the children by blocking content which although legal could be deemed as; "Harmful." Very much invoking the language and sentiment of the; "March For Family with God for Liberty (Marcha da Familia com Deus pela Liberdade)" which ushered in the Military Dictatorship of Brazil's Fifth Republic. The Act gives enforcement power to the Office of Communications (OFCOM). The UK equivalent of the US Federal Communications Committee (FCC) and Brazil's National Communications Agency (Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações/Anatel).
Although the Online Safety Act became law in October 2023 there has been a long grace period before all of its provisions are enforced. It perhaps shows how expansive its powers are that some of its provisions can't be enforced because the technology has yet to be invented. In January 2025 the UK government announced that the grace period for Section 12 of the Act would end in July 2025. From then on all websites accessible in the UK containing content deemed; "Pornographic" are required to pay to have robust ID checks to ensure that no-one under the age of 18 is able to access them. So it has been something that has loomed over Awards Season 2025. Particularly the way it's been covered online.
The issue has been the vagueness of the law. While the UK government has made of point of claiming it is protecting children from pornography that's not how the law is written. The restrictions don't apply to websites containing; "Pornography" as defined in law; "Content produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." Instead it applies to websites containing; "Harmful Content." How this defined in UK law is in any way the relevant government Minister wants to define it. They can also change the definition at will.
In the UK this type of power is officially known as; "Henry VIII Clauses." Named after Britain's famous tyrant King, Henry VIII they're the last vestige of when Britain was an Absolute Monarchy rather than a Constitutional Monarchy. As I mentioned Brazil's Emperor Pedro I shifted Brazil from being an Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy and then abdicated in order to return to Portugal to assist his daughter in turning Portugal from an Absolute Monarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy. However Henry VIII Clauses are probably more widely understood when described as; "Executive Orders" or; "Diktats." Like those used by Deodoro de Fonseca during The Republic of the Sword in the years following The Coup of the Republic (1889).
The Online Safety Act (2023) also has very broad enforcement powers. Not only can it punish a website that contains harmful content 10% of its revenue, with a minimum of GB£18 million (US$23.4m), it can also impose that penalty on any company doing business with that website. So if say Instagram contains harmful content OFCOM can fine it US$20m. It can also fine Google US$20m for Instagram showing up on Google searches. OFCOM can also fine Bank of America US$20m for allowing Instagram to have an account with them.
During Awards Season 2018, particularly at The Oscars 2018, there was a lot of discussion about the FCC's "No Nipples Rule." Which reduces the issue of whether content is sexual, let alone pornographic down to the binary test of whether it includes female nipples. How US Big Tech companies, which are now regulated by the UK's Online Safety Act (2023), had voluntarily adopted the FCC's No Nipples Rule. Making it something of a de facto global rule.
The absurdity of the No Nipples Rule is that it actually does very little in keeping sexual and even pornographic content off of US TV screens. It is something of a long-running game amongst US filmmakers to produce very sexual, almost pornographic, content in such a way that doesn't show female nipples in order to mock the rule. The only thing that the FCC's No Nipples Rule is any good at keeping off US TV screens is female nipples. Even when they're being depicted in a non-sexual way. Such as on a corpse, a statue or in documentaries about Breast-feeding and Breast Cancer.
A big part of any Awards Season is the Red Carpet Fashion. In response to US Big Tech Companies voluntarily adopting the No Nipples Rule websites covering Awards Season, particularly Red Carpet Fashion, were forced to alter their coverage. Adding pixilation in case an outline of a female nipple through a dress got them banned by Big Tech.
The intentional vagueness and severe legal penalties of the UK's Online Safety Act (2023) saw even more dramatic changes to the coverage of Awards Season 2025. No longer were websites concerned about nipples outlined through fabric. They were now concerned that too much cleavage or too short a skirt could be deemed; "Harmful!" and cost them and everyone they do business with GB£18m (US$23.4m) each. It seems that now an even perfectly innocent picture of a woman in a bikini swimsuit requires extensive pixilation. We often think of Brazil as something of a clothing optional sort of country. However during The Third Brazilian Republic the dictatorship of Getúlio Vargas issued a diktat banning the wearing of bikinis on Brazil's beaches. Something which actually contributed to his overthrow in The 1945 Coup d'état.
High Fashion is art. It allows for artistic expression which can be used to raise and discuss all sorts of political and societal points. At Awards Season 2018 it was particularly well placed to discuss Big Tech's voluntary adoption of the No Nipples Rules. So there were many exposed male nipples along with lots of outlines of female nipples through fabrics of various colours and densities. Posing the question of what Big Tech and the FCC find so traumatic about female nipples. Is it the colour? Is it the shape? Is it the fact that they're attached to women rather than men?
Another really good example, in the mix at The Oscars 2025, was the Machinenmensch outfit Zendaya wore to the premiere of; "Dune: Part Two" (2024). In "Metropolis" (1927) Machineman is an A.I sex drone which can take on the physical likeness of any Human. The Rotwang character originally invented it to take on the physical likeness of the Hel character, his one true love. The way Zendaya wore the Machinenmensch outfit gave the impression that she was providing the Endoskeleton for people who wanted to make A.I DeepFake porn of her. Actors as sex-workers. The outfit did expose some of Zendaya's flesh such as her buttocks and breasts, but not nipples. However the shiny metal also reflected the sand used on the floor at the premiere leaving you trying to work out what was actually Zendaya's flesh and what was fake. Something which was made much more difficult by the pixilation websites showing the images had to add.
It is perhaps easy to dismiss the artistic expression of fashion designers. However Awards Season is the big mass participation event which helps the US renegotiate its Social Contract. The often unwritten rules between US citizens and between US citizens and their government. By shutting down parts of how that big discussion is had you are shutting down want can be discussed. Limiting US citizens say in negotiations about what the rules are between them and their government. That starts giving the government more say than its citizens in what the rules are. How long before the government has total say?
The Section 12 provision Online Safety Act (2023) for websites to have robust ID checks came into force on July 25th (25/7/25). Suggesting OFCOM monitors this blog a lot more robustly than it monitors the BBC it imposed its first GB£1m (US1.3m) fine today (4/12/25).
Less than two months later (24/9/25) the UK government announced that Digital ID's, modelled on Vaccine Passports, would become compulsory in Britain. Officially the reason is to cut down on illegal immigration and illegal working. That though is an obvious lie. Post-9/11 the previous Labour government wanted to introduce compulsory ID cards to protect us from terrorism. Amid much discussion of Britain's Social Contract they were only able to impose compulsory ID cards for migrants, to cut down on illegal immigration and illegal working. A problem they clearly haven't solved in the quarter of a century they've been in operation. Although the UK government is still hiding behind its lie I think it is obvious that these compulsory Digital ID's are the ID's that websites will be required to robustly check under Section 12 of the Online Safety Act (2023).
This is extremely problematic in terms of the balance of power between the Government or State and the people or citizens. A lot of the News, the actions of government and State, includes content which could well be deemed as; "Harmful." Even without a politician being given free reign to decide for us what is harmful.
I often wonder whether I'm the right person to talk to about appropriate levels of violence that can be shown on screen. I was heavily involved in efforts to end the Genocide of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). A group which very much enjoyed publishing propaganda videos featuring brutal executions. Not only did I have to watch all of those videos I had to watch them multiple times in freeze-frame and slow motion to record every detail in copious notes. I very much remember the then US government of Barack Obama trying very hard to suppress the viewing of these executions on the grounds they were; "Harmful." Specifically people being able to see what ISIL were and what they did was extremely harmful to Barack Obama's efforts to support ISIL.
More recently we have the Genocidal war that the ISIL affiliate Hamas launched against Israel on October 7th (7/10/23). There is much content detailing the extreme violence and extreme sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas. For the second time in my life I got to watch a Genocide being committed in real time. Even without the expanded definition under the UK Online Safety Act (2023) much of the footage and written descriptions of Hamas' atrocities could well be considered; "Harmful." Even to battle-hardened adults like me, let alone children. Hamas supporters, including governments of many Liberatarian First World nations, openly deny Hamas' Genocide. Obviously content which proves they are lying is very harmful to them.
Against the backdrop of the enforcement of Section 12 of the UK Online Safety Act (2023) and the hard-launching of compulsory Digital ID's a big story in Britain has been Hadush Kebatu. An adjudicated illegal immigrant who sexually assaulted a child. Leading to a Summer of anti-Labour Party riots which very much resembled the anti-Labour Party riots that were the hallmark of Britain's Summer 2024. Obviously the facts of Hadush Kebatu's crimes include content that is both sexual and violent. Content which could be deemed harmful to children, although not as harmful to children as Hadush Kebatu himself.
Requiring websites distributing the facts of Hadush Kebatu's crimes to check ID's first is, by design, intended to limit the number of people who can access those facts. Are you comfortable using your compulsory Digital ID to notify the government, in real-time, that you wish to look at facts that do not show the government in a good light? Will there be consequences to you expressing curiosity in the idea that maybe, just maybe the government doesn't have your best interests at heart?
At around 18:50 on 2/12/25 (UK date) it's once again time for the government mandated three-day downing of tools.
Edited at around 17:00 on 8/12/25 (UK date) to tidy the above and copy & paste;
Some of the people who expressed support for the anti-Labour Party riots in 2024 online are still in prison. As are people who expressed support for the anti-Labour Party riots in 2025. So there seems to be a legitimate concern that by building a system where everyone must use their compulsory Digital ID to access every website the government is trying to create a real-time register of everyone who doesn't support it. With the same compulsory Digital ID being required to access employment and public services the purpose of that register is to quickly punish people who don't support the government.
Some people have compared what governments in the supposedly Libertarian First World are desperately trying to create to China's Social Credit System. That is a gross insult to China. Insofar as it exists China's Social Credit System is nowhere as near as Totalitarian and oppressive as what the supposedly Libertarian First World wants it to be.
The big change Deng Xiapoing brought to China was to embrace the Primary Stage of Communism. Allowing Capitalist Markets to turn Rural Peasants into Urbanised Industrial Workers and then Bourgeoisie. The problem this idea faced is that prior to the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 these Rural Peasants, the overwhelming majority of China's population, had been subsistence farmers; farming simply to feed themselves and their families. Under Chairman Mao these Rural Peasants remained as subsistence farmers. So at the time of Deng Xiaoping's reforms very few Chinese had really used money before.
So in the early 1980's China established its Social Credit System in rural areas. The purpose was to allow people to keep track of their financial transactions, exactly like your bank does through your bank account. At around the same time Muhammad Yunus established the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh to solve the exact same problem; allowing people to open bank accounts and access bank credit for the very first time. Muhammad Yunus went on to win The 2006 Nobel Prize for Economics for his efforts. The; "Social" in China's Social Credit System is meant to reflect how it is intended for Social Good. Not to regulate Society. Perhaps China should have established a private bank like Grameen Bank rather than a government agency. However at the time China had no banking sector. They probably felt they needed a solution in place before a domestic banking sector had time to develop.
By the 1990's enough Chinese people were able to engage with Capitalist Markets to learn about that problem that everyone familiar with Capitalist Markets knows about. When you give a customer credit by doing work for them and then invoice them at a later date not everyone pays that invoice. So there was growing pressure from within China for the Chinese government to make some of the information in the Social Credit System public. So when taking on a customer for the first time you could tell whether they always pay their invoices on time or whether you need to demand payment from them upfront. In looking at how to do this China extensively studied First World Credit Rating Agencies that people in the US will be more than familiar with such as Equifax, FICO, TransUnion etc. They particularly studied the US' Fair Credit Reporting Act (1970) which was introduced to limit the highly invasive powers of Credit Rating Agencies.
In response to the Terrorist Attacks against the US on September 11th 2001 (11/9/01) a lot of governments in the supposedly Libertarian First World started pushing for compulsory ID cards and registers to protect its citizens from terrorism. Against this backdrop, in 2002, China announced that it was going to start trialling its Social Credit System nationally. However rather than relying on a single system it instructed Local Authorities at the Province down to City-level to devise their own pilot systems.
So China doesn't have a Social Credit System. Instead it has a patchwork of many different Social Credit Systems. The only element common between all of them is that if a customer doesn't pay their invoice you can take them to Court. If the Court finds in your favour and issues a judgement against your customer then your customer gets added to a central Blacklist of people with such judgements against them. People can then search that Blacklist and decide whether they want to take the people on it on as customers.
In contrast, in the UK if a customer does not pay their invoice you can take them to Court. If the Court issues a judgement against them that judgement is published on the County Court Judgement (CCJ) Register. Before deciding whether to take you on as a customer and on what terms companies in Britain will often check the CCJ Register to make sure your name doesn't appear on that Blacklist.
At around 17:25 on 8/12/25 (UK date) it might be several days before I'm able to pick this up again.
Edited at around 17:45 on 10/12/25 (UK date) to copy & paste;
I assume there is a similar system in the US. If a customer does not pay their invoice you can take them to Court. If the Court issues a judgement against them details of that judgement are then published publically. Although I suspect there are ever so slightly different systems in each State and at the Federal level.
Of course this also protects customers. If you pay for something in advance, such as ordering it online, and the purchase isn't delivered or is defective you can take the supplier to Court. If the Court issues a judgement against them the details are then published publically. On the UK's CCJ Register, the Blacklist of China's Social Credit Systems or the US equivalent.
With China having a patchwork of different Social Credit Systems rather than a single system it is not easy to say what the consequences are of being added to the Blacklist. Even in the US and UK systems there is no automatic consequence to having this type of Court judgement issued against you. However the agencies of the Chinese government, of which there are many, are forbidden from doing business with companies on the Blacklist. Particularly if they've been added to the Blacklist for not providing things they've been paid for.
Obviously if you sell someone something they don't pay for or buy something which isn't provided you don't take the people responsible to Court to warn others. You primarily do it to get your money. As I assume is similar to the system in the US in the UK the issuing of a CCJ gives the person owed money the power to forcibly enter (break-in) to the home of the person owing money and forcibly take away cash and property to the value of the debt owned. The cost of breaking into the property and the cost of selling anything seized is added to the debt.
Again with China having a patchwork of Social Credit Systems, rather than a single Social Credit System it is difficult to summarise what actions can be taken to recover money from someone on the common Blacklist. However in 2013 China's Supreme Court ruled that nationally they can be restricted from spending money on; "non-work and non-life essential consumption behaviour" until their debt is paid. That involves things like preventing them from buying plane tickets and high-speed train tickets, taking holidays, buying real estate or renting anything but the most basic real estate.
I cannot pretend I have a working knowledge of US Tort Law at both the State and Federal level, if only there was someone who recently failed the California Bar Exam I could ask. However my understanding is that a Court could not add someone to the Federal "No-Fly List" for failing to pay Child Support, as can happen in China. However a Court can issue an arrest warrant for someone who has not paid Child Support. That arrest warrant would see them added to the Federal No Fly List. Along with leaving them subject to arrest anywhere their ID is checked, such as leaving or returning from a holiday in Mexico.
It must be said that both of those options seem significantly less invasive and oppressive than the UK system. Allowing the person you owe money to break into your house to seize your property, using reasonable force should you attempt to stop them.
At around 18:15 on 10/12/25 (UK date) I hope to be able to do a lot more tomorrow.
Edited at around 17:35 on 11/12/25 (UK date) to tidy the above and copy & paste;
In discussing The Substance (2024) we touched on Rachel Carson's; "Silent Spring" and Murray Bookchin's; "Our Synthetic Environment," both published in 1962. How both of these books had such a massive impact on the public consciousness they forever changed how the public thought about pollution and how the environment shaped their lives. They gave birth to the Environmental Movement which now shapes politics in almost every nation in the World.
By the start of the 21st Century this Environmental Movement had evolved to give birth to the concept of; "Sustainable Development." How to achieve Economic growth without compromising future generations ability to achieve Economic growth, primarily by not destroying the Environment through pollution. Underpinning the concept of Sustainable Development is the concept of; "True Cost Accounting" or; "True Cost Economics." This considers not just the private profits of an Economic activity but also the wider public costs, such as pollution and Environmental damage.
For example if a farmer uses a Pesticide like DDT it might boost the farmer's profits but it also incurs the cost of Dioxin pollution and increased childhood Cancers. Under traditional accounting the costs would have to be borne by wider society, through increased Healthcare spending or just a lot of dead children, while the farmer gets to keep their profits private. In True Cost Accounting the social cost is deducted from the private profits. It's gone on to shape the; "Polluter Pays Principle" and Carbon Credit Trading Markets to combat Greenhouse Gas (ghg) Emissions and the Climate Change they cause.
In 1997 China and most other nations, with the honourable exception of the US, signed the Kyoto Protocol to combat Climate Change. The Kyoto Protocol divided the nations of the World into; "Annex I" for nations considered fully Economically Developed and; "Annex II" for nations considered to be still Economically Developing. As the largest nation in the group China effectively became the leader of the Annex II nations.
So in launching its annoying multitude of pilot Social Credit Systems China incorporated some principles of True Cost Accounting. If a restaurant sells spoiled food which poisons people then that incurs a cost which will be paid by someone. Likewise if a Babymilk manufacturer or a Drug manufacturer makes a product which poisons people that incurs a cost which will be paid by someone. If a Lithium-ion battery manufacturer makes batteries which catch fire and explode, burning down entire apartment buildings, that too incurs a cost which will be paid by someone. This list of examples can be almost endless.
So under a lot of China's Social Credit Systems if a company or individual causes a wider social cost such as poisoning people, burning down their homes or, to a lesser extent, polluting the Environment then that cost is deducted from their Social Credit rating. Arguably this is just people selling defective products having Court judgements issued against them. However the difference is enforcement. In these areas compliance with the rules is considered so important to society that enforcement is carried out by government agencies. Rather than the person who has incurred the cost of the defective product having to go to Court themselves to obtain the judgement. Again it’s hard to say what the consequences of being added to the national Blacklist for these reasons are. However as with any company or person on the Blacklist agencies of the Chinese government are forbidden from doing business with them.
This type of government regulation is something which is common across the Libertarian First World; the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the EU European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) etc. The UK's OFCOM, the US' FCC and Brazil's Anatel are also examples of this type of government regulation. Enforcement action by any one of these government regulators can be a lot more serious than being added to a Blacklist which stops government agencies doing business with you. It can result in everyone being banned from buying your product. Although these enforcement actions can be challenged in the Courts. Something which tends to be less common and less effective in China.
At around 18:10 on 11/12/25 (UK date) Insurance Market Making will have to wait until next week. It's time for the Mudhutter's Picnic, again(!)
