Ascension – Ascension Glossary

Ascension, also known as Spiritual Awakening, is a simultaneous increase of Expanding Consciousness that occurs when our spiritual-energetic bodies connect into our physical bodies. Generally, the catalyst for spiritual Awakening is discovered through the process of progressive Kundalini activation that starts in the base of our spine and moves the intelligent energies up the spine and into the Crown. As a human being undergoes the Awakening process, which can progress gradually over many years, that person shifts into perceptions of higher consciousness, which can include increased awareness of energy in the environment, perceiving multidimensional realities, sensing extradimensional entities and feeling a direct communion with God and the interconnected energy that exists between all things.

Ascension is a change in Spectrum of Frequency through Kundalini awakening and a change in the focus of our Consciousness. Ascension is about moving our Consciousness from one reality to another. Since reality is a dimension, what we are undertaking is essentially a full dimensional shift. To go through this shift we must adjust our way of thinking and being to that which is in alignment with our soul purpose and true divine essence.

Ascension is the complex quantum mechanics governing the movement of consciousness through time and space. Consciousness is energy, as well as, energy is intelligent consciousness. When energy shifts, so does our consciousness. Time and space as we have known on planet earth is changing, and we are moving into a future timeline. Through gradual exposure to frequency activation of various stellar bodies, the planet is transformed into higher dimensional and frequency planes of existence. One can consider the multidimensional model of our reality through the study of the Universal Time Matrix and the Universal Tree of Life. The shift of frequency forces all of the planetary inhabitants to shift into the newly exposed planetary frequencies and adapt to the accumulative impact of the shifting energies. All humans have a unique Blueprint and pace to keep aligned with the planetary frequencies. Some will adapt to these frequencies while embodied on planet, while others may not. The choice lies with each of us and is directly our responsibility. We can participate or not with our personal evolution process. All that is required from the Ascension process is participation at the level you are able and that attention and focus is placed on one’s heart with a desire to know the true self.

As we develop Self Awareness which is the knowledge of the Self, we are developing the right relationship to the Self, and thus we can better develop our relationship with God Source. We cannot know the highest expression of our nature, until we know the deepest inner contents of our own being. Self study is self mastery and is the pathway to expanding Consciousness and awakening Kundalini.

See Where Can I Start?

The Ascension Stages are about the bringing of layers of light, the Kundalini force existing within the levels of our spiritual bodies (our Multidimensional God Selves) by descending these layers into matter and anchoring them into the physical plane of reality. Simultaneously, Ascension is a shift in energetic Spectrum of Frequency patterns held in a dimensional space which, when absorbed and activated into the layers of the planetary and human bio-energetic field, activates its DNA Silicate Matrix template instruction set. This catalyzes a chain of events that creates a complete transformation and transmutation of various patterns and programs held in the energetic templates of the Human Souls journey within a cycle of evolutionary time. When activated, these patterns begin to shift, re-emerge and clear from the layers of experiences coded into every cell and memory pattern held as an energetic vibration within the bodies. This part of the biological ascension process may manifest physical, mental and emotional Ascension Symptoms as well as the spiritual crisis of the Dark Night of the Soul.

The 5D Ascension is the original evolutionary schema or Ascension Plan for the planet Earth at the end of the 2012 Timelines or at the end of the Ascension Cycle, or the end of an Age of Humanity. This original plan was aborted by the Krystal Star Guardians, and in my knowledge, I was shifted from my original Ascension mission in 2004 to learn how to best work for the Guardian Aurora teams who were active building Krystal Star hosting architecture for planet earth. In 2005 I was made aware the original plan was aborted and councils disbanded and reassembled to work on the new mission upgrades, called Ascension Plan B.

The elemental re-encryption process of this Avatar of Ascension (AOA) project as a part of the Aurora Guardian Families is an adjustment that actually changes the coordinates of your birth blueprint and its genetic imprint on the flesh. When we incarnated into 3D we had to accept huge miasmic package that is attached to the collective human race mental bodies on this planet. These are called Negative Forms or Shadow or Phantom Sun bodies. These phantom bodies are what connect humans to the timeline of the (911 Timelines), Armageddon Software or the negative alien agenda NAA. The transduction sequence is the definition of when the God Spark connects to the core manifestation body (12 Tree Grid) which projects out the elemental physical manifest body Three Layers of Ego. As we know a major project of the AOA Aurora is to re-encrypt the elemental structure of our bodies, as well as anchor the architecture to build the unity source code platform. This changes the false 911 Timelines architecture and is what the work of this ES community is in laying the template of the Law of One (LOO) in the GSF Ascension Timeline. This timeline exists in the Aurora time continuum. See Aurora Re-encryptions.[1]

4 Planetary Rounds = 1 Planetary Cycles = 1 Astrological Age = Aeon = 26,000 (26,566) years = precession of Earths axis of rotation with respect to inertial space.At the end of every cycle, we become aligned to the galactic core; Stargate portals open (See Planetary Gates, and we are eligible to proceed with an Ascension timeline.

Refers to the precession of Earth’s axis of rotation with respect to inertial space. A complete precession cycle (One Astrological Age) covers a period of approximately 25,765 years, the so called Great Platonic Year, during which time the equinox regresses over a full 360. The precessional movement also is the determining factor in the length of an Astrological Age or Aeon. (Note that there are 12 Zodiac Archetypes that are each of the 12 Astrological Ages. We are moving from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius.) The Precession of the Equinoxes is caused by the differential between the gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon on the Earth.

What is Ascension?

Virtues

Spirits of Christ

Father Arc

Mother Arc

Krystal Star

KA RA YA SA TA AA LA (KRYSTAL)

Read more here:

Ascension – Ascension Glossary

Ascension: Season 1 – Rotten Tomatoes

The Tomatometer score based on the opinions of hundreds of film and television critics is a trusted measurement of critical recommendation for millions of fans. It represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show.

Fresh

The Tomatometer is 60% or higher.

Rotten

The Tomatometer is below 60%.

Certified Fresh

Movies and TV shows are Certified Fresh with a steady Tomatometer of 75% or higher after a set amount of reviews (80 for wide-release movies, 40 for limited-release movies, 20 for TV shows), including 5 reviews from Top Critics.

Audience Score

Percentage of users who rate a movie or TV show positively.

Read more here:

Ascension: Season 1 – Rotten Tomatoes

Church of the Ascension

Regular Mass Schedule:Saturday 5:30pmSunday 8:45am and 10:30am 12:15pm(Nursery available/Children’s Liturgy @ 8:45am & 10:30am)

Tuesday 7:00pm Wednesday-Friday 9:15am

Gluten Free Host now available, see Sacristan prior to Mass.

Reconciliation: Saturday 4:30pm

First Friday Eucharistic Adoration 10:00am to 6:00pm in Chapel

Read the rest here:

Church of the Ascension

Ascension Island Government

At approximately 5.30 pm on Monday 24 July there was a serious, unprovoked shark attack at English Bay on Ascension Island involving a US citizen, who was paddle-boarding approx. 30 m from shore. The victim, having been knocked off his paddle board into the sea and suffering multiple shark lacerations, Read more

Go here to read the rest:

Ascension Island Government

What is Ascension? – Energetic Synthesis

This is a basic Primer to review the basic meaning and mechanics of the “Ascension” and discuss the various awakening symptoms that we as humans may encounter in our consciousness evolution process. I have many articles and tools on the website that will help support your awareness to investigate and explore the impacts this has upon human beings, our planet and all of consciousness. It is important to develop strong discernment of the energetic signatures that we interact with, while learning how to distinguish personal resonance to help guide you forward, so only take in what feels right for your personal journey and discard the rest.

Humanity is undergoing a consciousness shift which requires a re-education of valuesand change of priorities in lifestyle, of which much of this information on this website is a guideline to support those awakening and being guided towards stewardship or leadership in order to help others move through the transitional impacts this creates on the planet. It is also important to share this information with others in order to not feel a sense of isolation and fear from a myriad of possible unusual consciousness experiences that can result from the integration of our higher light-energy bodies that happens during our Ascension process. My desire to share this information comes from my very personal and frightening physical awakening process that dismantled my entire reality and ego in a very short period of time. During intense spiritual awakening phases in which we undergo ego dismantling, is called the Dark Night of the Soul. I share my experiences with anyone who may need this information as I have had many unusual, mystical manifestations appear in my life since my spontaneous kundalini release many years ago. Those of us undergoing the first wave of awakening will be Ascension Guides for the balance of humanity who have not yet experienced a direct spiritual awakening or extra-dimensional contact. This website is dedicated to the Starseeds, and those endeavoring to evolve as Guardian Stewards in order to help participate and build the required consciousness structures this planet and humanity will require in the coming Age.

It is important to share this information in order to not feel a sense of isolation and fear from a myriad of possible unusual consciousnessexperiences that can result from the integration of our higher light-energy bodies that happens during the Planetary Ascension cycle. My desire to share this information comes from my very personal and frightening physical awakening process that dismantled my entire reality and ego in a very short period of time. It made functioning in life in the 3D reality extremely painful, isolating and difficult to navigate. I share my experiences with anyone who may need this information to develop better discernment, as I had many unusual, mystical and unexplainable manifestations appear in my life since my spontaneous kundalini release many years ago. As I had no guru, teacher or mentor to explain it to me, my personality/ego was terrified that I was losing my mind along with my identity in the life I had known up to that point. Who does one call upon during mutidimensional awakening experiences and when sick with the kundalini flu? Who on Earth do you talk to when you are introduced to other interdimensional beings of every shade of light, grey and darkness and then begin to perceive an organized spiritual hierarchy of otherworldly human and non human entities? Why are some of these dark entities attacking people that are awakening? Further, I had many physical ailments show up during these times when the spiritual light force was greatly increased and activated from within me to build my aura. At the time, I was most blessed and had teams of Angels (Light Beings) and Extradimensional Ascended Masters around me, I was emotionally devastated and physically ill, as my state was exacerbated from my lack of comprehension of what was transpiring in my consciousness body. No one told me that spiritual awakening and rising kundalini forces can not only be devastating, but that there are many dark forces on the earth that will start targeting you for energetic harrassment to stop your forward progress.

Now I want to share my direct awakening experiences to assist anyone who may need this information so that having this knowledge can eradicate the fear of facing the unknown mysteries lying within. Once we go into and are spiritually initiated into these mysteries of God, there is no turning back. During these times since the planet is accelerating so quickly into higher frequency patterns, many more people will experience spontaneous awakening and consciousness altering experiences, that may feel to be scary without proper context. Many of these people will not be in spiritual or metaphysical settings when this consciousness shift occurs to them, it will be the office professional, the banker, the average person in the level of the current mass consciousness. Spiritual awakening is not a disease to be labeled by the medical community so people are medicated, it is a natural biological process for expanding human consciousness. The ultimate liberation of our Soul-Spirit comes through this blessing and humans must embrace and prepare themselves for this consciousness change that will forever alter the way we perceive and interact with reality. This process is the divine destiny of all humankind and our beautiful planet that is the heart principle of the Universe. We are in an accelerated consciousness evolution timeline and it is time to prepare. Many people have been suppressed and mind controlled to reject the spiritual-energetic reality of which the planet and humanity is undergoing and facing now. The Controllers do not want Planetary Ascension information given nor many other topics for disclosure given to the masses as common knowledge, because they can control and herd people easier when they are scared and dumbed down. Those awakening now are the forerunners and the Mapmakers of the future planetary changes to shift the timelines. In order to be effective and clear, self mastery over mental and emotional states, as well as having proper evolutionary context, and an awareness of the hidden extraterrestrial agendas, is required for Integrated Spiritual Ascension and future Stewardship roles.

The Mechanics of the Shift

First, let us review the meaning of “Ascension” and why we, as humans, will experience physical, emotional and mental symptoms and changes.

Currently we are in a phase transition of expansion into the realms of experiencing higher consciousness as multidimensional human beings living on this planet. During this phase of the Ascension cycle, we as human beings will experience many varied physical symptoms as we shift our cells into higher frequency patterns.

Ascension is about the bringing of layers of light, the force existing within the levels of our spiritual bodies (our Multidimensional God Selves) by descending these layers into matter and anchoring them into the physical plane of reality. Simultaneously, Ascension is a shift in energetic frequency patterns held in a dimensional space which, when absorbed and activated into the layers of the planetary and human bio-energetic field, activates its DNA template instruction set. This catalyzes a chain of events that creates a complete transformation and transmutation of various patterns and programs held in the energetic templates of the Human Souls journey within a cycle of evolutionary time. When activated, these patterns begin to shift, re-emerge and clear from the layers of experiences coded into every cell and memory pattern held as an energetic vibration within the bodies.

The Ascension process is about moving the consciousness from one reality to another and the awareness of possible multiple realities existing simultaneously. Since a reality is a dimension, what we are undertaking is, in essence, a complete dimensional shift. A dimensional reality is held in place by a complex layer of coded energetic grids to create the illusion of time and space for the consciousness to perceive and to participate in its own experience within the broadband widths of that particular range of frequency. As the dimensional grids shift its frequency and its magnetic attributes change, all things existing within that broadband reality will also shift and change in a myriad of ways. The natural laws governing that time and space as we know them will change. This also means the perception of our spatial awareness, our relationship to time and space will also change rather dramatically.

Thus, to go through this shift one must prepare and adjust one’s way of thinking and being to that which is in alignment with the soul purpose and true divine essence. Surrender and Acceptance are two main characteristics we will need to allow to permeate through us to facilitate an easier time. In order to shift the old behaviors and thought patterns not serving the soul purpose, we will become aware of the beliefs and behaviors that exist as imbalances within us and we must take the appropriate steps to integrate or clear them. This process will bring our deepest fears, beliefs of limitation and old pain patterns to the surface through events that trigger them into our awareness so that we can consciously acknowledge, resolve and heal them. Some of these issues are ancestral or inherited in their nature and may feel rather odd yet familiar when they are is brought to your awareness. It is important to remember that we are not only clearing our own individual mind grid, but also the karmic mind implications and collective (un)consciousness implications on this planet from the last evolutionary cycle. This way you can reframe the circumstance in your mind to be that which is impersonal and detached from identifying with the specific issue that has risen to the surface to be cleared within your bodies. Appreciate and acknowledge your light being for accepting the assignment for this clearing rather than claiming it as belonging to you. By doing this repeatedly, we clear our emotional and energy bodies of the long held traumas, beliefs and fears that have impeded our ability to experience our true being and bring more joy into our lives. Once the emotional body is resolved and cleared of an old pain or trauma, the physical body then is enabled to clear its equivalent of that block.

All of this happens simultaneously within all of the layers of the bio-energetic field when each healing is cleared. In effect, it is a full clearing and release of these painful events held as patterns in the bodies from the souls record and cellular memory. And that is pretty awe inspiring when you realize how this will impact the human experience as we move forward!

Also, as these painful patterns are removed from the soul record, the clearing recodes our DNA so it can hold more light, thus sustaining our new frequency and a state of increasing higher consciousness and multidimensionality. As we hold this greater light and advanced genetic package in our bio-energy field, it enables others, through the principle of resonance, to vibrate at the increased frequency rate and activate their own inner potential and divine inheritance towards Ascension.

Emotional clearing is the main process we will experience and be acutely aware of as we shift through the Ascension. Since emotional pain and imbalances are responsible for our states of “dis-ease” many of us will experience illness or physical releases of pain clearing from our bodies. Some of this clearing is for your karmic, genetic or ancestral soul lineage. Some of us, as lightworkers, have chosen to clear states of imbalances for the collective or for a specific group and will feel this movement of energy transmute through us, as our energetic being is acting as a cosmic filtration system for the greater whole.

The goal of this information is to inform you of these dynamics that we are currently experiencing, and as the energies accelerate to prepare you even further by clearly discussing the various possible physical symptoms from a position of having a neutral association. Utilizing what works for you personally by cultivating intuitive discernment with an informed awareness is the intended support of offering this discussion.

This is to not alarm you, but is used as a tool to keep you informed in order to be self accountable and self sovereign in all of your upcoming choices. We will not be given anything we cannot handle. Much of this can be avoided by being self-aware and taking the time to heal through emotional clearing and listening to your body when it requests other healing techniques. Spirit has given us many tools for our Ascension toolkit to assist and support our evolution in the easiest possible way. Ask for assistance with a pure heart and it will be given!

Transmutational Symptoms

During theAscensionprocess as we accrete frequency and light we may undergo a variety of ascension symptoms, physical, mental, emotional or spiritual-energetic.

These transmutational symptoms can be extreme. The12D Shieldis helpful to harmonize the body through many ascension symptoms. Many of the ascension symptoms are vague to describe and inexpressible in linear thought and language. When people go to doctors, they are being told to take drugs or they are being instructed to seek professional psychological help.This site is not professing to be giving any medical advice. It may be beneficial for some of us to seek out medical or psychological treatment during our process. We must follow our own inner guidance on how to proceed with what is occurring within our physical and energy body systems at this unprecedented time of acceleration.

Certain symptoms are now becoming more apparent and when we know this as a process and that many others are feeling the same things, a certain serenity can be brought into the mind. Many can rest in the knowledge that they are being transformed in ways that may feel extremely hard on the physical body.

Some of the most common symptoms reported include:

Also, our bodies often experience a rush of heat and energy bursts that are not comfortable. Our bodies are being shifted in thermodynamic ways and with so much light entering the fields of the body, some of the “symptoms” we experience are actually preventing our physical vehicles from bursting with the intensity of light. We may experience a “triad” sleep pattern (waking up every 3 hours) or interrupted sleep as we are being recalibrated and worked on energetically at night. This adds to our being restless and tired in the morning.

Remember to be gentle with your hearts and being and only allow others within your boundaries of inner sanctum that treat you the same. This can be an extremely vulnerable time emotionally. We need to release the fear of asking for help and investing in ourselves to feel balanced and healthy. Massage, Bodywork, Hydration, Supplementation, Energy Work, Spiritual Counsel

If I could impart anything to our it would be to emphasize how humans are so deeply loved and appreciated by God’s Spirit, The Krystal Star and Law of One Light Hierarchies, The Planetary Logos, from all those of whom we serve as One. The impact of our collective consciousness work during this evolutionary time cycle to shift future timelines is generally beyond the comprehension of the human mind.

As we move forward only those of you that can feel the inner resonance are aware if you are apart of the soul groups of Starseeds and Indigos that agreed to be the Light stewardship and Ascension Guides for the changing reality structure. Humans are expanding consciousness to become increasingly multidimensional, and being in Love is only one part of the human equation. Clearing ego and emotional wounds, learning to discern ego from higher self intelligence, as well as reclaiming and healing spiritual light-bodies, and evicting Imposter Spirit parasites, is a part of having an accurate assessment of the requirements of our changing earth. Our earth needs new ethical guidance and humanitarian stewardship. The Galactic community, those in communication with enlightened intelligence fields and higher dimensions, are the first ascending waves to meet those challenges of building structures that support humanity as multidimensional spiritual beings. Our community is the repository of building and supporting the integrated ascension path, as well as cultivating self leadership in order to lead and support humanity through personal example.

Lightworkers, Starseeds, Gridworkers and Ascension Stewards,Thank you and with deep gratitude for all of your amazing work!

Stay in the luminosity of your Avatar heart and Christos-Sophia path! We are here to reunite the Holy Mother and Holy Father and reclaim the Christos Diamond Sun body for all!

Lisa Renee, http://www.EnergeticSynthesis.com

Original post:

What is Ascension? – Energetic Synthesis

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech, Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a clear and present dangeri.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). See also censorship.

Continue reading here:

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Why Is Freedom of Speech Important? | Reference.com

In areas of the world where freedom of speech is not protected, citizens are afraid to speak out against their government, even when it acts illegally, for fear of being locked away in a cell for life. According to the University of Virginia, historically, men, women and even some children were put to death for daring to speak out against a tyrannical monarch, an unjust parliament or legislature or even a powerful corporation.

Fortunately, in the first amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees a person the freedom to speak and express himself however he wishes, just so long that his actions do not infringe on the rights of another person. Even in the American Colonies, prohibitions on free speech were rampant. Virginia had a law in its charter that would grant the death penalty for anyone who “blasphemed God’s holy name.”

According to Justia.com, one of the most overlooked part of the guarantee of free speech is the fact that it causes sweeping change in ways that the government itself can never quite accomplish. Justice Thurgood Marshall stated, “above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

The change is gay marriage laws is one example of how the actions of a free society lobbying, protesting, distributing fliers and debating caused sweeping changes in public perception and the law in a relatively small amount of time. Without freedom of speech, the voices of this minority would have never been heard.

Go here to see the original:

Why Is Freedom of Speech Important? | Reference.com

Beaches (1988) – IMDb

Nominated for 1 Oscar. Another 1 win & 5 nominations. See more awards Learn more People who liked this also liked…

Comedy

In the 1940s in the small town of Jupiter Hollow, two sets of identical twins are born in the same hospital on the same night. One set to a poor local family and the other to a rich family … See full summary

Director:Jim Abrahams

Stars: Bette Midler, Lily Tomlin, Fred Ward

Comedy | Drama | Romance

A young beautician, newly arrived in a small Louisiana town, finds work at the local salon, where a small group of women share a close bond of friendship, and welcome her into the fold.

Director:Herbert Ross

Stars: Shirley MacLaine, Olympia Dukakis, Sally Field

Drama

The friendship between two women from childhood onwards.

Director:Allison Anders

Stars: Nia Long, Idina Menzel, Antonio Cupo

Comedy

Reunited by the death of a college friend, three divorced women seek revenge on the husbands who left them for younger women.

Director:Hugh Wilson

Stars: Goldie Hawn, Bette Midler, Diane Keaton

Comedy

Two women unknowingly share the same man, but when he disappears, both go out looking for him and enter his surprisingly dangerous life.

Director:Arthur Hiller

Stars: Shelley Long, Bette Midler, Peter Coyote

Comedy | Drama | Music

With the help of the singer and dancer Dixie Leonhard, U.S. entertainer Eddie Sparks wants to bring some fun to the soldiers during World War II. Becoming a perfect team, they tour from … See full summary

Director:Mark Rydell

Stars: Bette Midler, James Caan, George Segal

Drama

A housewife who is unhappy with her life befriends an old lady in a nursing home and is enthralled by the tales she tells of people she used to know.

Director:Jon Avnet

Stars: Kathy Bates, Jessica Tandy, Mary Stuart Masterson

Drama | Romance

A strong and eccentric woman’s devoted relationship to her daughter through the years.

Director:John Erman

Stars: Bette Midler, John Goodman, Trini Alvarado

Drama | Music | Romance

The tragic life of a self-destructive female rock star who struggles to deal with the constant pressures of her career and the demands of her ruthless business manager.

Director:Mark Rydell

Stars: Bette Midler, Alan Bates, Frederic Forrest

When the New York child performer CC Bloom and San Francisco rich kid Hillary meet in a holiday resort in Atlantic City, it marks the start of a lifetime friendship between them. The two keep in touch through letters for a number of years until Hillary, now a successful lawyer moves to New York to stay with struggling singer CC. The movie shows the various stages of their friendship and their romances including their love for the same man. Written bySami Al-Taher

Budget:$20,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend USA: $198,361,26 December 1988, Limited Release

Gross USA: $57,041,866

Runtime: 123 min

Aspect Ratio: 1.85 : 1

See original here:

Beaches (1988) – IMDb

Beaches (film) – Wikipedia

Beaches (also known as Forever Friends) is a 1988 American comedy-drama film adapted by Mary Agnes Donoghue from the Iris Rainer Dart novel of the same name. It was directed by Garry Marshall, and stars Bette Midler, Barbara Hershey, Mayim Bialik, John Heard, James Read, Spalding Gray, and Lainie Kazan.

Despite generally negative reviews from critics, the film was a commercial success, grossing $59 million in the box office, and gained a cult following.

A sequel, based on the novel Beaches II: I’ll Be There was planned with Barbara Eden but never filmed.

The story of two friends from different backgrounds, whose friendship spans more than 35 years through childhood, love, and tragedy: Cecilia Carol “C.C.” Bloom, a New York actress and singer, and Hillary Whitney, a San Francisco heiress and lawyer. The film begins with middle-aged C.C. receiving a note during a rehearsal for her upcoming Los Angeles concert. She leaves the rehearsal in a panic and tries frantically to travel to her friend’s side. Unable to get a flight to San Francisco because of fog, she rents a car and drives overnight, reflecting on her life with Hillary.

It is 1958; a rich little girl, Hillary, meets child performer C.C., under the boardwalk on the beach in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Hillary is lost and C.C. is hiding from her overbearing stage mother. They become fast friends, growing up and bonding through letters of support to each other. A grown-up Hillary goes on to become a human rights lawyer, while C.C.’s singing career is not exactly taking off. They write to each other regularly and give updates on their lives. Hillary shows up at the New York City dive bar where C.C. is performing, their first meeting since Atlantic City. She moves in with C.C. and gets a job with the ACLU. C.C. is now performing singing telegrams, leading to a job offer from John, the artistic director of the Falcon Players, after she sings his birthday telegram.

A love triangle ensues as Hillary and John are instantly attracted to one another, leaving C.C. in the cold and feeling resentment toward her best friend. Matters are made worse when Hillary and John sleep together on the opening-night of C.C.’s first lead in an off-Broadway production. When Hillary returns home to care for her ailing father, the two friends resolve their issues about John, as John does not have romantic feelings for C.C. After her father passes away, Hillary spends time at her family beach house with lawyer Michael Essex, eventually marrying him. C.C. and John spend a lot of time together, start dating and eventually marry. Hillary and Michael travel to New York to see C.C. perform on Broadway, where she has become a star. When C.C. finds out that Hillary has stopped working as a lawyer, she accuses Hillary of giving up on her dreams. Hillary responds that C.C. has become no more than a “pretentious social climber” who is obsessed with her career. After the argument, Hillary ignores C.C.’s letters, throwing herself into being a dutiful, but unchallenged, wife.

John tells C.C. that her self-centeredness and obsession with her career has him feeling left behind and he asks for a divorce. Despite the separation, John tells her, ‘I love you, I’ll always love you. I just want to let go of us before us gets bad.’ Upset at the thought of her marriage failing, C.C. turns to her mother, who lives in Miami Beach. Her mother tells her that she has given up a lot for her daughter, and C.C. starts to understand when her mother tells her the effect that her selfishness has had on those closest to her. Meanwhile, Hillary returns home from a trip earlier than expected to find her husband having breakfast with another woman, both wearing pajamas. When Hillary learns that C.C. is performing in San Francisco, she makes contact for the first time in years. They learn of each other’s divorces, then discover that they have been secretly jealous of each other for years: Hillary is upset that she has none of the talent or charisma that C.C. is noted for, while C.C. admits she has always been envious of Hillary’s beauty and intelligence. The two then realize that their feud could have been avoided by honest communication.

Hillary tells C.C. that she is pregnant and that she has already decided to keep the baby and raise the child as a single parent, a decision that wins her much admiration from the feisty and independent C.C., who promises she will stay and help her out. C.C. even starts talking of settling down and having a family of her own, having become engaged to Hillary’s obstetrician. However, when C.C.’s agent calls with the perfect comeback gig for her, C.C. quickly abandons her fianc and any notions of the domestic life and races back to New York City, discovering that the comeback gig is at her ex-husband John’s theater, bringing her full circle to where she began her theatrical career. Hillary eventually gives birth to a daughter, whom she names Victoria Cecilia. When Victoria is a young girl, Hillary finds herself easily exhausted and breathless, a state she attributes to her busy schedule as a mother and a lawyer. When she collapses while at court she is diagnosed with viral cardiomyopathy requiring a heart transplant if she is to live. Having a rare tissue type, she realizes she will most likely die before a heart is found.

In the meantime C.C. has become a big star, having won a Tony award and completed her latest hit album. When she learns of Hillary’s illness she agrees to accompany Hillary and Victoria to the beach house for the summer. Hillary becomes depressed due to her debilitated state and inadvertently takes her frustration out on C.C. who she sees having fun with and connecting with Victoria. Hillary eventually begins to accept her prognosis bravely, appreciating her time with Victoria and C.C. Hillary and Victoria return to San Francisco, while C.C. heads to Los Angeles for her concert. While Victoria is packing to travel to the concert, Hillary collapses, leading to the note C.C. receives at the start of the movie which prompts her overnight drive to San Francisco. C.C. takes Hillary and Victoria to the beach house. The two friends watch the sun setting over the beach, transitioning directly to a scene of C.C. and Victoria at a cemetery (all with C.C. singing “Wind Beneath My Wings” in the background).

After the funeral, C.C. tells Victoria that her mother wanted her to live with her. C.C. admits that she is very selfish and has no idea what kind of a mother she will make, but also tells her: “there’s nothing in the world that I want more than to be with you”. She then takes Victoria into her arms and the two console each other in their grief. C.C. goes forward with her concert, and after the show, she leaves hand-in-hand with Victoria, and begins telling stories of when she first met her mother. C.C.’s and Victoria’s voices fade as we hear the younger C.C. and Hillary from 1958: “Be sure to keep in touch, C.C., OK?” “Well sure, we’re friends aren’t we?” The film ends with a young C.C. and Hillary taking pictures together, in a photo booth, on the day they first met.

The film’s theme song, “Wind Beneath My Wings”, hit number one on the Billboard Hot 100 charts and won Grammy Awards for Record of the Year and Song of the Year in 1990.

The film took in $5,160,258 during its opening weekend beginning January 21, 1989. It grossed $57,041,866 domestically.[3]

The film was released on VHS by Touchstone Home Video in August 1989, with a DVD release on August 13, 2002, followed by a special-edition DVD on April 26, 2005.

On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 36% based on 39 reviews, and an average rating of 4.4/10.[4]

Included on the soundtrack was Midler’s performance of “Wind Beneath My Wings”, which became an immediate smash hit. The song went on to win Grammys for Record of the Year and Song of the Year in 1990.

It was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Art Direction (Albert Brenner and Garrett Lewis).[5]

The film is recognized by American Film Institute in these lists:

Lifetime announced a remake of the film, which aired on January 22, 2017. The updated version was directed by Allison Anders with the script by Bart Barker and Nikole Beckwith, and Idina Menzel plays the role of C.C.[7][8] Nia Long plays the role of Hillary alongside Menzel. The film includes the songs “Wind Beneath My Wings” and “The Glory of Love”.[9] [10]

A musical stage adaptation has been written, based on the book by Iris Rainer Dart, with lyrics and book by Dart and Thom Thomas (book) and music by David Austin. The musical premiered at the Signature Theatre, Arlington, Virginia in February 2014. The musical was directed by Eric D. Schaeffer, with Alysha Umphress as Cee Cee Bloom and Mara Davi as Bertie White.[11][12]

The musical next opened at the Drury Lane Theatre, Oakbrook, Illinois in June 2015 (previews). Again directed by Schaeffer, Shoshana Bean plays Cee Cee and Whitney Bashor plays Bertie.[13] The choreographer is Lorin Latarro, with scenic design by Derek McLane, lighting design by Howell Binkley, costume design by Alejo Vietti and sound design by Kai Harada.[14]

Excerpt from:

Beaches (film) – Wikipedia

New York Beaches & Swimming | New York State Tourism

Get some sun. The Hamptons white sand beaches and charming villages make it one of the hottest spots for beach vacations. Check the Long Island surf report for ocean updates and visit popular ocean spots includingRobert Moses,Jonesand Montauk’sHither Hills–just to name a few. For surfing, sea kayaking and stand-up paddleboarding, head toLake Champlain, Lake Ontario,Fire Island National Seashoreand many more sandy shores. Summer is the time to relax–find your beach in New York.

Read more:

New York Beaches & Swimming | New York State Tourism

Best Beaches in the World – TripAdvisor

@A@ of @B@

@C@ of @D@

Best time to go:Year-round

Best time to go:Year-round

Best time to go:Year-round

Aruba’s most beautiful beach. Private, quiet, serene, amazing!

Best time to go:Year-round

Best time to go:Year-round

Best time to go:June – September

Best time to go:Year-round

Best time to go:Year-round

Best time to go:Year-round

Best time to go:Year-round

Best time to go:May – October

Best time to go:April – October

Best time to go:May – October

Best time to go:July – September

Picture perfect, with crystal clear, warm waters, shade, sun and powder white sand

Best time to go:Year-round

Best time to go:Year-round

Serene, tranquil beach, far from the madding crowd. Ideal place for meditation, sun worshiping or reading.

Best time to go:November – April

Best time to go:April – November

Best time to go:Year-round

Best time to go:May – September

Best time to go:May – October

Best time to go:June – September

Best time to go:November – May

Calm, warm waters, gently sloping sand. Very relaxing. Possibly the most beautiful beach in Asia.

Best time to go:December – May

COLLAPSE LIST

Need inspiration? See more Travelers Choice Awards

Read the original here:

Best Beaches in the World – TripAdvisor

NATO – Homepage

NATO constantly reviews and transforms its policies, capabilities and structures to ensure that it can continue to address current and future challenges to the freedom and security of its members. Presently, Allied forces are required to carry out a wide range of missions across several continents; the Alliance needs to ensure that its armed forces remain modern, deployable, and capable of sustained operations.

Read the rest here:

NATO – Homepage

NATO – Wikipedia

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO ; French: Organisation du Trait de l’Atlantique Nord; OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance between several North American and European countries based on the North Atlantic Treaty that was signed on 4 April 1949.[3][4]

NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party. Three NATO members (the United States, France and the United Kingdom) are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with the power to veto and are officially nuclear-weapon states. NATO Headquarters are located in Haren, Brussels, Belgium, while the headquarters of Allied Command Operations is near Mons, Belgium.

NATO is an alliance that consists of 29 independent member countries across North America and Europe. An additional 21countries participate in NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, with 15other countries involved in institutionalized dialogue programs. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the global total.[5] Members’ defense spending is supposed to amount to at least 2% of GDP by 2024.[6]

NATO was little more than a political association until the Korean War galvanized the organization’s member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two US Supreme Commanders. The course of the Cold War led to a rivalry with nations of the Warsaw Pact, that formed in 1955. Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defense against a prospective Soviet invasiondoubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of France from NATO’s military structure in 1966 for 30 years. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany in 1989, the organization became involved in the breakup of Yugoslavia, and conducted its first military interventions in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 and later Yugoslavia in 1999. Politically, the organization sought better relations with former Warsaw Pact countries, several of which joined the alliance in 1999 and 2004.

Article5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the September 11 attacks,[7] after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF. The organization has operated a range of additional roles since then, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations[8] and in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The less potent Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members, has been invoked five times: by Turkey in 2003 over the Iraq War; twice in 2012 by Turkey over the Syrian Civil War, after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet, and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria;[9] in 2014 by Poland, following the Russian intervention in Crimea;[10] and again by Turkey in 2015 after threats by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to its territorial integrity.[11]

Since its founding, the admission of new member states has increased the alliance from the original 12 countries to 29. The most recent member state to be added to NATO is Montenegro on 5 June 2017. NATO currently recognizes Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia and Ukraine as aspiring members.[12]

Contents

The Treaty of Brussels was a mutual defence treaty against the Soviet threat at the start of the Cold War. It was signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom. It was the precursor to NATO. The Soviet threat became immediate with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, leading to the creation of a joint defence organization in September 1948. However, the parties were too weak militarily to counter the military power of the USSR. In addition, the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d’tat by the Communists had overthrown a democratic government and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin reiterated that the best way to prevent another Czechoslovakia was to evolve a joint Western military strategy. He got a receptive hearing in the United States, especially considering American anxiety over Italy (and the Italian Communist Party).

In 1948, European leaders met with US defence, military and diplomatic officials at the Pentagon, under US Secretary of State George C. Marshall’s orders, exploring a framework for a new and unprecedented association. Talks for a new military alliance resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed by US President Harry S. Truman in Washington on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.[16] The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization’s goal was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. Popular support for the Treaty was not unanimous, and some Icelanders participated in a pro-neutrality, anti-membership riot in March 1949. The creation of NATO can be seen as the primary institutional consequence of a school of thought called Atlanticism which stressed the importance of trans-Atlantic cooperation.[18]

The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently, they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so. This differs from ArticleIV of the Treaty of Brussels, which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. It is nonetheless assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member’s territory and their “vessels, forces or aircraft” above the Tropic of Cancer, including some overseas departments of France.[19]

The creation of NATO brought about some standardization of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology, which in many cases meant European countries adopting US practices. The roughly 1300Standardization Agreements (STANAG) codified many of the common practices that NATO has achieved. Hence, the 7.6251mm NATO rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries.[20] Fabrique Nationale de Herstal’s FAL, which used the 7.62mm NATO cartridge, was adopted by 75 countries, including many outside of NATO. Also, aircraft marshalling signals were standardized, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base. Other standards such as the NATO phonetic alphabet have made their way beyond NATO into civilian use.[22]

The outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) was formed to direct forces in Europe, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951.[24] In September 1950, the NATO Military Committee called for an ambitious buildup of conventional forces to meet the Soviets, subsequently reaffirming this position at the February 1952 meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Lisbon. The Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO’s Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion to ninety-six divisions. However this requirement was dropped the following year to roughly thirty-five divisions with heavier use to be made of nuclear weapons. At this time, NATO could call on about fifteen ready divisions in Central Europe, and another ten in Italy and Scandinavia. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization’s chief civilian was created, and Lord Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.[27]

In September 1952, the first major NATO maritime exercises began; Exercise Mainbrace brought together 200 ships and over 50,000 personnel to practice the defence of Denmark and Norway.[28] Other major exercises that followed included Exercise Grand Slam and Exercise Longstep, naval and amphibious exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, Italic Weld, a combined air-naval-ground exercise in northern Italy, Grand Repulse, involving the British Army on the Rhine (BAOR), the Netherlands Corps and Allied Air Forces Central Europe (AAFCE), Monte Carlo, a simulated atomic air-ground exercise involving the Central Army Group, and Weldfast, a combined amphibious landing exercise in the Mediterranean Sea involving American, British, Greek, Italian and Turkish naval forces.[29]

Greece and Turkey also joined the alliance in 1952, forcing a series of controversial negotiations, in which the United States and Britain were the primary disputants, over how to bring the two countries into the military command structure.[24] While this overt military preparation was going on, covert stay-behind arrangements initially made by the Western European Union to continue resistance after a successful Soviet invasion, including Operation Gladio, were transferred to NATO control. Ultimately unofficial bonds began to grow between NATO’s armed forces, such as the NATO Tiger Association and competitions such as the Canadian Army Trophy for tank gunnery.[30][31]

In 1954, the Soviet Union suggested that it should join NATO to preserve peace in Europe.[32] The NATO countries, fearing that the Soviet Union’s motive was to weaken the alliance, ultimately rejected this proposal.

On 17 December 1954, the North Atlantic Council approved MC 48, a key document in the evolution of NATO nuclear thought. MC 48 emphasized that NATO would have to use atomic weapons from the outset of a war with the Soviet Union whether or not the Soviets chose to use them first. This gave SACEUR the same prerogatives for automatic use of nuclear weapons as existed for the commander-in-chief of the US Strategic Air Command.

The incorporation of West Germany into the organization on 9 May 1955 was described as “a decisive turning point in the history of our continent” by Halvard Lange, Foreign Affairs Minister of Norway at the time.[33] A major reason for Germany’s entry into the alliance was that without German manpower, it would have been impossible to field enough conventional forces to resist a Soviet invasion. One of its immediate results was the creation of the Warsaw Pact, which was signed on 14 May 1955 by the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and East Germany, as a formal response to this event, thereby delineating the two opposing sides of the Cold War.

Three major exercises were held concurrently in the northern autumn of 1957. Operation Counter Punch, Operation Strikeback, and Operation Deep Water were the most ambitious military undertaking for the alliance to date, involving more than 250,000 men, 300 ships, and 1,500 aircraft operating from Norway to Turkey.[35]

NATO’s unity was breached early in its history with a crisis occurring during Charles de Gaulle’s presidency of France.[36] De Gaulle protested against the USA’s strong role in the organization and what he perceived as a special relationship between it and the United Kingdom. In a memorandum sent to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on 17 September 1958, he argued for the creation of a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with the US and the UK.

Considering the response to be unsatisfactory, de Gaulle began constructing an independent defence force for his country. He wanted to give France, in the event of an East German incursion into West Germany, the option of coming to a separate peace with the Eastern bloc instead of being drawn into a larger NATOWarsaw Pact war.[38] In February 1959, France withdrew its Mediterranean Fleet from NATO command, and later banned the stationing of foreign nuclear weapons on French soil. This caused the United States to transfer two hundred military aircraft out of France and return control of the air force bases that it had operated in France since 1950 to the French by 1967.

Though France showed solidarity with the rest of NATO during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, de Gaulle continued his pursuit of an independent defence by removing France’s Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command. In 1966, all French armed forces were removed from NATO’s integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to leave France. US Secretary of State Dean Rusk was later quoted as asking de Gaulle whether his order included “the bodies of American soldiers in France’s cemeteries?” This withdrawal forced the relocation of SHAPE from Rocquencourt, near Paris, to Casteau, north of Mons, Belgium, by 16 October 1967.[42] France remained a member of the alliance, and committed to the defence of Europe from possible Warsaw Pact attack with its own forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany throughout the Cold War. A series of secret accords between US and French officials, the LemnitzerAilleret Agreements, detailed how French forces would dovetail back into NATO’s command structure should East-West hostilities break out.[43]

When de Gaulle announced his decision to withdraw from the integrated NATO command, President Lyndon Johnson suggested that when de Gaulle “comes rushing down like a locomotive on the track, why the Germans and ourselves, we just stand aside and let him go on by, then we are back together again.”[44] The vision came true. France announced their return to full participation at the 2009 StrasbourgKehl summit.[45]

During most of the Cold War, NATO’s watch against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact did not actually lead to direct military action. On 1 July 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons opened for signature: NATO argued that its nuclear sharing arrangements did not breach the treaty as US forces controlled the weapons until a decision was made to go to war, at which point the treaty would no longer be controlling. Few states knew of the NATO nuclear sharing arrangements at that time, and they were not challenged. In May 1978, NATO countries officially defined two complementary aims of the Alliance, to maintain security and pursue dtente. This was supposed to mean matching defences at the level rendered necessary by the Warsaw Pact’s offensive capabilities without spurring a further arms race.

On 12 December 1979, in light of a build-up of Warsaw Pact nuclear capabilities in Europe, ministers approved the deployment of US GLCM cruise missiles and PershingII theatre nuclear weapons in Europe. The new warheads were also meant to strengthen the western negotiating position regarding nuclear disarmament. This policy was called the Dual Track policy. Similarly, in 198384, responding to the stationing of Warsaw Pact SS-20 medium-range missiles in Europe, NATO deployed modern Pershing II missiles tasked to hit military targets such as tank formations in the event of war. This action led to peace movement protests throughout Western Europe, and support for the deployment wavered as many doubted whether the push for deployment could be sustained.

The membership of the organization at this time remained largely static. In 1974, as a consequence of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Greece withdrew its forces from NATO’s military command structure but, with Turkish cooperation, were readmitted in 1980[citation needed]. The Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina did not result in NATO involvement because article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty specifies that collective self-defence is only applicable to attacks on member state territories north of the Tropic of Cancer. On 30 May 1982, NATO gained a new member when the newly democratic Spain joined the alliance; Spain’s membership was confirmed by referendum in 1986. At the peak of the Cold War, 16 member nations maintained an approximate strength of 5,252,800 active military, including as many as 435,000 forward deployed US forces, under a command structure that reached a peak of 78 headquarters, organized into four echelons.[50]

The Revolutions of 1989 and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 removed the de facto main adversary of NATO and caused a strategic re-evaluation of NATO’s purpose, nature, tasks, and their focus on the continent of Europe. This shift started with the 1990 signing in Paris of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe between NATO and the Soviet Union, which mandated specific military reductions across the continent that continued after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991.[51] At that time, European countries accounted for 34 percent of NATO’s military spending; by 2012, this had fallen to 21 percent.[52] NATO also began a gradual expansion to include newly autonomous Central and Eastern European nations, and extended its activities into political and humanitarian situations that had not formerly been NATO concerns.

The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with German reunification on 3 October 1990, when the former East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany and the alliance. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier in the year. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the east, and there are diverging views on whether negotiators gave commitments regarding further NATO expansion east.[53] Jack Matlock, American ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final years, said that the West gave a “clear commitment” not to expand, and declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the impression that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.[54] Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the West German foreign minister at that time, said in a conversation with Eduard Shevardnadze that “[f]or us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.”[54] In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs, that “during the negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east,” and repeated this view in an interview in 2008.[56] According to Robert Zoellick, a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception, and no formal commitment regarding enlargement was made.[57]

As part of post-Cold War restructuring, NATO’s military structure was cut back and reorganized, with new forces such as the Headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps established. The changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union on the military balance in Europe were recognized in the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, which was signed in 1999. The policies of French President Nicolas Sarkozy resulted in a major reform of France’s military position, culminating with the return to full membership on 4 April 2009, which also included France rejoining the NATO Military Command Structure, while maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent.[43][58]

Between 1994 and 1997, wider forums for regional cooperation between NATO and its neighbors were set up, like the Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue initiative and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. In 1998, the NATORussia Permanent Joint Council was established. On 8 July 1997, three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO, which each did in 1999. Membership went on expanding with the accession of seven more Central and Eastern European countries to NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. They were first invited to start talks of membership during the 2002 Prague summit, and joined NATO on 29 March 2004, shortly before the 2004 Istanbul summit. At that time, the decision was criticised in the US by many military, political and academic leaders as a “a policy error of historic proportions.”[59] According to George F. Kennan, an American diplomat and an advocate of the containment policy, this decision “may be expected to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”[60]

New NATO structures were also formed while old ones were abolished. In 1997, NATO reached agreement on a significant downsizing of its command structure from 65 headquarters to just 20.[61] The NATO Response Force (NRF) was launched at the 2002 Prague summit on 21 November, the first summit in a former Comecon country. On 19 June 2003, a further restructuring of the NATO military commands began as the Headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic were abolished and a new command, Allied Command Transformation (ACT), was established in Norfolk, United States, and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) became the Headquarters of Allied Command Operations (ACO). ACT is responsible for driving transformation (future capabilities) in NATO, whilst ACO is responsible for current operations.[62] In March 2004, NATO’s Baltic Air Policing began, which supported the sovereignty of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia by providing jet fighters to react to any unwanted aerial intrusions. Eight multinational jet fighters are based in Lithuania, the number of which was increased from four in 2014.[63] Also at the 2004 Istanbul summit, NATO launched the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative with four Persian Gulf nations.[64]

The 2006 Riga summit was held in Riga, Latvia, and highlighted the issue of energy security. It was the first NATO summit to be held in a country that had been part of the Soviet Union. At the April 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania, NATO agreed to the accession of Croatia and Albania and both countries joined NATO in April 2009. Ukraine and Georgia were also told that they could eventually become members.[65] The issue of Georgian and Ukrainian membership in NATO prompted harsh criticism from Russia, as did NATO plans for a missile defence system. Studies for this system began in 2002, with negotiations centered on anti-ballistic missiles being stationed in Poland and the Czech Republic. Though NATO leaders gave assurances that the system was not targeting Russia, both presidents Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev criticized it as a threat.[66]

In 2009, US President Barack Obama proposed using the ship-based Aegis Combat System, though this plan still includes stations being built in Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Romania, and Poland.[67] NATO will also maintain the “status quo” in its nuclear deterrent in Europe by upgrading the targeting capabilities of the “tactical” B61 nuclear bombs stationed there and deploying them on the stealthier Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.[68][69] Following the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, NATO committed to forming a new “spearhead” force of 5,000 troops at bases in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria.[70][71]

At the 2014 Wales summit, the leaders of NATO’s member states reaffirmed their pledge to spend the equivalent of at least 2% of their gross domestic products on defence by 2024.[72] In 2015, five of its 28 members met that goal.[73][74][75] On 15 June 2016, NATO officially recognized cyberwarfare as an operational domain of war, just like land, sea and aerial warfare. This means that any cyber attack on NATO members can trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.[76] Montenegro became the 29th and newest member of NATO on 5 June 2017, amid strong objections from Russia.[77][78]

No military operations were conducted by NATO during the Cold War. Following the end of the Cold War, the first operations, Anchor Guard in 1990 and Ace Guard in 1991, were prompted by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Airborne early warning aircraft were sent to provide coverage of southeastern Turkey, and later a quick-reaction force was deployed to the area.[79]

The Bosnian War began in 1992, as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia. The deteriorating situation led to United Nations Security Council Resolution 816 on 9 October 1992, ordering a no-fly zone over central Bosnia and Herzegovina, which NATO began enforcing on 12 April 1993 with Operation Deny Flight. From June 1993 until October 1996, Operation Sharp Guard added maritime enforcement of the arms embargo and economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On 28 February 1994, NATO took its first wartime action by shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft violating the no-fly zone.

On 10 and 11 April 1994, during the Bosnian War, the United Nations Protection Force called in air strikes to protect the Gorade safe area, resulting in the bombing of a Bosnian Serb military command outpost near Gorade by two US F-16 jets acting under NATO direction. This resulted in the taking of 150U.N. personnel hostage on 14 April.[82][83] On 16 April a British Sea Harrier was shot down over Gorade by Serb forces. A two-week NATO bombing campaign, Operation Deliberate Force, began in August 1995 against the Army of the Republika Srpska, after the Srebrenica massacre.[85]

NATO air strikes that year helped bring the Yugoslav wars to an end, resulting in the Dayton Agreement in November 1995.[85] As part of this agreement, NATO deployed a UN-mandated peacekeeping force, under Operation Joint Endeavor, named IFOR. Almost 60,000 NATO troops were joined by forces from non-NATO nations in this peacekeeping mission. This transitioned into the smaller SFOR, which started with 32,000 troops initially and ran from December 1996 until December 2004, when operations were then passed onto European Union Force Althea. Following the lead of its member nations, NATO began to award a service medal, the NATO Medal, for these operations.[87]

In an effort to stop Slobodan Miloevi’s Serbian-led crackdown on KLA separatists and Albanian civilians in Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1199 on 23 September 1998 to demand a ceasefire. Negotiations under US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke broke down on 23 March 1999, and he handed the matter to NATO,[88] which started a 78-day bombing campaign on 24 March 1999.[89] Operation Allied Force targeted the military capabilities of what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. During the crisis, NATO also deployed one of its international reaction forces, the ACE Mobile Force (Land), to Albania as the Albania Force (AFOR), to deliver humanitarian aid to refugees from Kosovo.[90]

Though the campaign was criticized for high civilian casualties, including bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Miloevi finally accepted the terms of an international peace plan on 3 June 1999, ending the Kosovo War. On 11 June, Miloevi further accepted UN resolution 1244, under the mandate of which NATO then helped establish the KFOR peacekeeping force. Nearly one million refugees had fled Kosovo, and part of KFOR’s mandate was to protect the humanitarian missions, in addition to deterring violence.[90][91] In AugustSeptember 2001, the alliance also mounted Operation Essential Harvest, a mission disarming ethnic Albanian militias in the Republic of Macedonia.[92] As of 1December2013[update], 4,882KFOR soldiers, representing 31countries, continue to operate in the area.[93]

The US, the UK, and most other NATO countries opposed efforts to require the UN Security Council to approve NATO military strikes, such as the action against Serbia in 1999, while France and some others claimed that the alliance needed UN approval.[94] The US/UK side claimed that this would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they noted that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia, and could do the same in future conflicts where NATO intervention was required, thus nullifying the entire potency and purpose of the organization. Recognizing the post-Cold War military environment, NATO adopted the Alliance Strategic Concept during its Washington summit in April 1999 that emphasized conflict prevention and crisis management.[95]

The September 11 attacks in the United States caused NATO to invoke Article5 of the NATO Charter for the first time in the organization’s history. The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty.[96] The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the attacks included Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour, a naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea which is designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction, as well as enhancing the security of shipping in general which began on 4 October 2001.[97]

The alliance showed unity: On 16 April 2003, NATO agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which includes troops from 42 countries. The decision came at the request of Germany and the Netherlands, the two nations leading ISAF at the time of the agreement, and all nineteen NATO ambassadors approved it unanimously. The handover of control to NATO took place on 11 August, and marked the first time in NATO’s history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area.[98]

ISAF was initially charged with securing Kabul and surrounding areas from the Taliban, al Qaeda and factional warlords, so as to allow for the establishment of the Afghan Transitional Administration headed by Hamid Karzai. In October 2003, the UN Security Council authorized the expansion of the ISAF mission throughout Afghanistan,[99] and ISAF subsequently expanded the mission in four main stages over the whole of the country.[100]

On 31 July 2006, the ISAF additionally took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a US-led anti-terrorism coalition.[101] Due to the intensity of the fighting in the south, in 2011 France allowed a squadron of Mirage 2000 fighter/attack aircraft to be moved into the area, to Kandahar, in order to reinforce the alliance’s efforts.[102] During its 2012 Chicago Summit, NATO endorsed a plan to end the Afghanistan war and to remove the NATO-led ISAF Forces by the end of December 2014.[103] ISAF was disestablished in December 2014 and replaced by the follow-on training Resolute Support Mission

In August 2004, during the Iraq War, NATO formed the NATO Training Mission Iraq, a training mission to assist the Iraqi security forces in conjunction with the US led MNF-I.[104] The NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I) was established at the request of the Iraqi Interim Government under the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. The aim of NTM-I was to assist in the development of Iraqi security forces training structures and institutions so that Iraq can build an effective and sustainable capability that addresses the needs of the nation. NTM-I was not a combat mission but is a distinct mission, under the political control of NATO’s North Atlantic Council. Its operational emphasis was on training and mentoring. The activities of the mission were coordinated with Iraqi authorities and the US-led Deputy Commanding General Advising and Training, who was also dual-hatted as the Commander of NTM-I. The mission officially concluded on 17 December 2011.[105]

Beginning on 17 August 2009, NATO deployed warships in an operation to protect maritime traffic in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean from Somali pirates, and help strengthen the navies and coast guards of regional states. The operation was approved by the North Atlantic Council and involves warships primarily from the United States though vessels from many other nations are also included. Operation Ocean Shield focuses on protecting the ships of Operation Allied Provider which are distributing aid as part of the World Food Programme mission in Somalia. Russia, China and South Korea have sent warships to participate in the activities as well.[106][107] The operation seeks to dissuade and interrupt pirate attacks, protect vessels, and abetting to increase the general level of security in the region.[108]

During the Libyan Civil War, violence between protestors and the Libyan government under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi escalated, and on 17 March 2011 led to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which called for a ceasefire, and authorized military action to protect civilians. Acoalition that included several NATO members began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya shortly afterwards. On 20 March 2011, NATO states agreed on enforcing an arms embargo against Libya with Operation Unified Protector using ships from NATO Standing Maritime Group1 and Standing Mine Countermeasures Group1,[109] and additional ships and submarines from NATO members.[110] They would “monitor, report and, if needed, interdict vessels suspected of carrying illegal arms or mercenaries”.[109]

On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone from the initial coalition, while command of targeting ground units remained with the coalition’s forces.[111][112] NATO began officially enforcing the UN resolution on 27 March 2011 with assistance from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.[113] By June, reports of divisions within the alliance surfaced as only eight of the 28 member nations were participating in combat operations,[114] resulting in a confrontation between US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and countries such as Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Germany to contribute more, the latter believing the organization has overstepped its mandate in the conflict.[115][116][117] In his final policy speech in Brussels on 10 June, Gates further criticized allied countries in suggesting their actions could cause the demise of NATO.[118] The German foreign ministry pointed to “aconsiderable [German] contribution to NATO and NATO-led operations” and to the fact that this engagement was highly valued by President Obama.[119]

While the mission was extended into September, Norway that day announced it would begin scaling down contributions and complete withdrawal by 1 August.[120] Earlier that week it was reported Danish air fighters were running out of bombs.[121][122] The following week, the head of the Royal Navy said the country’s operations in the conflict were not sustainable.[123] By the end of the mission in October 2011, after the death of Colonel Gaddafi, NATO planes had flown about 9,500 strike sorties against pro-Gaddafi targets.[124][125] A report from the organization Human Rights Watch in May 2012 identified at least 72 civilians killed in the campaign.[126] Following a coup d’tat attempt in October 2013, Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan requested technical advice and trainers from NATO to assist with ongoing security issues.[127]

NATO has twenty-nine members, mainly in Europe and North America. Some of these countries also have territory on multiple continents, which can be covered only as far south as the Tropic of Cancer in the Atlantic Ocean, which defines NATO’s “area of responsibility” under Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty. During the original treaty negotiations, the United States insisted that colonies such as the Belgian Congo be excluded from the treaty.[129] French Algeria was however covered until their independence on 3 July 1962.[130] Twelve of these twenty-nine are original members who joined in 1949, while the other seventeen joined in one of seven enlargement rounds.

From the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, France pursued a military strategy of independence from NATO under a policy dubbed “Gaullo-Mitterrandism”.[citation needed] Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated the return of France to the integrated military command and the Defence Planning Committee in 2009, the latter being disbanded the following year. France remains the only NATO member outside the Nuclear Planning Group and unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, will not commit its nuclear-armed submarines to the alliance.[43][58] Few members spend more than two percent of their gross domestic product on defence,[131] with the United States accounting for three quarters of NATO defense spending.[132]

New membership in the alliance has been largely from Central and Eastern Europe, including former members of the Warsaw Pact. Accession to the alliance is governed with individual Membership Action Plans, and requires approval by each current member. NATO currently has two candidate countries that are in the process of joining the alliance: Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Macedonia. In NATO official statements, the Republic of Macedonia is always referred to as the “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, with a footnote stating that “Turkey recognizes the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name”. Though Macedonia completed its requirements for membership at the same time as Croatia and Albania, who joined NATO in 2009, its accession was blocked by Greece pending a resolution of the Macedonia naming dispute.[133] In order to support each other in the process, new and potential members in the region formed the Adriatic Charter in 2003.[134] Georgia was also named as an aspiring member, and was promised “future membership” during the 2008 summit in Bucharest,[135] though in 2014, US President Barack Obama said the country was not “currently on a path” to membership.[136]

Russia continues to oppose further expansion, seeing it as inconsistent with understandings between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and European and American negotiators that allowed for a peaceful German reunification.[54] NATO’s expansion efforts are often seen by Moscow leaders as a continuation of a Cold War attempt to surround and isolate Russia,[137] though they have also been criticised in the West.[138] A June 2016 Levada poll found that 68% of Russians think that deploying NATO troops in the Baltic states and Poland former Eastern bloc countries bordering Russia is a threat to Russia.[139] Ukraine’s relationship with NATO and Europe has been politically divisive, and contributed to “Euromaidan” protests that saw the ousting of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. In March 2014, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk reiterated the government’s stance that Ukraine is not seeking NATO membership.[140] Ukraine’s president subsequently signed a bill dropping his nation’s nonaligned status in order to pursue NATO membership, but signaled that it would hold a referendum before seeking to join.[141] Ukraine is one of eight countries in Eastern Europe with an Individual Partnership Action Plan. IPAPs began in 2002, and are open to countries that have the political will and ability to deepen their relationship with NATO.[142]

A 2006 study in the journal Security Studies argued that NATO enlargement contributed to democratic consolidation in Central and Eastern Europe.[143]

The Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme was established in 1994 and is based on individual bilateral relations between each partner country and NATO: each country may choose the extent of its participation.[145] Members include all current and former members of the Commonwealth of Independent States.[146] The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) was first established on 29 May 1997, and is a forum for regular coordination, consultation and dialogue between all fifty participants.[147] The PfP programme is considered the operational wing of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership.[145] Other third countries also have been contacted for participation in some activities of the PfP framework such as Afghanistan.[148]

The European Union (EU) signed a comprehensive package of arrangements with NATO under the Berlin Plus agreement on 16 December 2002. With this agreement, the EU was given the possibility to use NATO assets in case it wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO itself did not want to actthe so-called “right of first refusal”.[149] For example, Article 42(7) of the 1982 Treaty of Lisbon specifies that “If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power”. The treaty applies globally to specified territories whereas NATO is restricted under its Article 6 to operations north of the Tropic of Cancer. It provides a “double framework” for the EU countries that are also linked with the PfP programme.

Additionally, NATO cooperates and discusses its activities with numerous other non-NATO members. The Mediterranean Dialogue was established in 1994 to coordinate in a similar way with Israel and countries in North Africa. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative was announced in 2004 as a dialog forum for the Middle East along the same lines as the Mediterranean Dialogue. The four participants are also linked through the Gulf Cooperation Council.[150]

Political dialogue with Japan began in 1990, and since then, the Alliance has gradually increased its contact with countries that do not form part of any of these cooperation initiatives.[151] In 1998, NATO established a set of general guidelines that do not allow for a formal institutionalisation of relations, but reflect the Allies’ desire to increase cooperation. Following extensive debate, the term “Contact Countries” was agreed by the Allies in 2000. By 2012, the Alliance had broadened this group, which meets to discuss issues such as counter-piracy and technology exchange, under the names “partners across the globe” or “global partners”.[152][153] Australia and New Zealand, both contact countries, are also members of the AUSCANNZUKUS strategic alliance, and similar regional or bilateral agreements between contact countries and NATO members also aid cooperation. Colombia is the NATOs latest partner and Colombia has access to the full range of cooperative activities NATO offers to partners; Colombia became the first and only Latin American country to cooperate with NATO.[154]

The main headquarters of NATO is located on Boulevard LopoldIII/Leopold III-laan, B-1110 Brussels, which is in Haren, part of the City of Brussels municipality.[155] A new 750 million headquarters building began construction in 2010, was completed in summer 2016,[156] and was dedicated on 25 May 2017.[157] The 250,000 square metres (2,700,000sqft) complex was designed by Jo Palma and home to a staff of 3800.[158] Problems in the original building stemmed from its hurried construction in 1967, when NATO was forced to move its headquarters from Porte Dauphine in Paris, France following the French withdrawal.[42]

The staff at the Headquarters is composed of national delegations of member countries and includes civilian and military liaison offices and officers or diplomatic missions and diplomats of partner countries, as well as the International Staff and International Military Staff filled from serving members of the armed forces of member states.[160] Non-governmental citizens’ groups have also grown up in support of NATO, broadly under the banner of the Atlantic Council/Atlantic Treaty Association movement.

The cost of the new headquarters building escalated to about 1.1 billion[161] or $1.23 billion.[162]

Like any alliance, NATO is ultimately governed by its 29 member states. However, the North Atlantic Treaty and other agreements outline how decisions are to be made within NATO. Each of the 29 members sends a delegation or mission to NATO’s headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.[163] The senior permanent member of each delegation is known as the Permanent Representative and is generally a senior civil servant or an experienced ambassador (and holding that diplomatic rank). Several countries have diplomatic missions to NATO through embassies in Belgium.

Together, the Permanent Members form the North Atlantic Council (NAC), a body which meets together at least once a week and has effective governance authority and powers of decision in NATO. From time to time the Council also meets at higher level meetings involving foreign ministers, defence ministers or heads of state or government (HOSG) and it is at these meetings that major decisions regarding NATO’s policies are generally taken. However, it is worth noting that the Council has the same authority and powers of decision-making, and its decisions have the same status and validity, at whatever level it meets. France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States are together referred to as the Quint, which is an informal discussion group within NATO. NATO summits also form a further venue for decisions on complex issues, such as enlargement.[164]

The meetings of the North Atlantic Council are chaired by the Secretary General of NATO and, when decisions have to be made, action is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord. There is no voting or decision by majority. Each nation represented at the Council table or on any of its subordinate committees retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions.

The body that sets broad strategic goals for NATO is the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO-PA) which meets at the Annual Session, and one other time during the year, and is the organ that directly interacts with the parliamentary structures of the national governments of the member states which appoint Permanent Members, or ambassadors to NATO. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is made up of legislators from the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance as well as thirteen associate members. Karl A. Lamers, German Deputy Chairman of the Defence Committee of the Bundestag and a member of the Christian Democratic Union, became president of the assembly in 2010.[167] It is however officially a different structure from NATO, and has as aim to join together deputies of NATO countries in order to discuss security policies on the NATO Council.

The Assembly is the political integration body of NATO that generates political policy agenda setting for the NATO Council via reports of its five committees:

These reports provide impetus and direction as agreed upon by the national governments of the member states through their own national political processes and influencers to the NATO administrative and executive organizational entities.

NATO’s military operations are directed by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee with the Deputy Chairman, and split into two Strategic Commands commanded by a senior US officer and (currently) a senior French officer[168] assisted by a staff drawn from across NATO. The Strategic Commanders are responsible to the Military Committee for the overall direction and conduct of all Alliance military matters within their areas of command.[62]

Each country’s delegation includes a Military Representative, a senior officer from each country’s armed forces, supported by the International Military Staff. Together the Military Representatives form the Military Committee, a body responsible for recommending to NATO’s political authorities those measures considered necessary for the common defence of the NATO area. Its principal role is to provide direction and advice on military policy and strategy. It provides guidance on military matters to the NATO Strategic Commanders, whose representatives attend its meetings, and is responsible for the overall conduct of the military affairs of the Alliance under the authority of the Council.[169] The Chairman of the NATO Military Committee is Petr Pavel of the Czech Republic, since 2015, and the Deputy Chairman is Steven Shepro of the United States, since 2016.

Like the Council, from time to time the Military Committee also meets at a higher level, namely at the level of Chiefs of Defence, the most senior military officer in each nation’s armed forces. Until 2008 the Military Committee excluded France, due to that country’s 1966 decision to remove itself from the NATO Military Command Structure, which it rejoined in 1995. Until France rejoined NATO, it was not represented on the Defence Planning Committee, and this led to conflicts between it and NATO members.[170] Such was the case in the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom.[171] The operational work of the Committee is supported by the International Military Staff.

The structure of NATO evolved throughout the Cold War and its aftermath. An integrated military structure for NATO was first established in 1950 as it became clear that NATO would need to enhance its defences for the longer term against a potential Soviet attack. In April 1951, Allied Command Europe and its headquarters (SHAPE) were established; later, four subordinate headquarters were added in Northern and Central Europe, the Southern Region, and the Mediterranean.[172]

From the 1950s to 2003, the Strategic Commanders were the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT). The current arrangement is to separate responsibility between Allied Command Transformation (ACT), responsible for transformation and training of NATO forces, and Allied Command Operations (ACO), responsible for NATO operations worldwide.[173] Starting in late 2003 NATO has restructured how it commands and deploys its troops by creating several NATO Rapid Deployable Corps, including Eurocorps, I. German/Dutch Corps, Multinational Corps Northeast, and NATO Rapid Deployable Italian Corps among others, as well as naval High Readiness Forces (HRFs), which all report to Allied Command Operations.[174]

In early 2015, in the wake of the War in Donbass, meetings of NATO ministers decided that Multinational Corps Northeast would be augmented so as to develop greater capabilities, to, if thought necessary, prepare to defend the Baltic States, and that a new Multinational Division Southeast would be established in Romania. Six NATO Force Integration Units would also be established to coordinate preparations for defence of new Eastern members of NATO.[175]

Multinational Division Southeast was activated on 1 December 2015.[176] Headquarters Multinational Division South East (HQ MND-SE) is a North Atlantic Council (NAC) activated NATO military body under operational command (OPCOM) of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) which may be employed and deployed in peacetime, crisis and operations by NATO on the authority of the appropriate NATO Military Authorities by means of an exercise or operational tasking issued in accordance with the Command and Control Technical Arrangement (C2 TA) and standard NATO procedures.

During August 2016, it was announced that 650 soldiers of the British Army would be deployed on an enduring basis in Eastern Europe, mainly in Estonia with some also being deployed to Poland. This British deployment forms part of a four-battle group (four-battalion) deployment by various allies, NATO Enhanced Forward Presence, one each spread from Poland (the Poland-deployed battle group mostly led by the US) to Estonia.

Read the original here:

NATO – Wikipedia

NATO | Founders, Members, & History | Britannica.com

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) of April 4, 1949, which sought to create a counterweight to Soviet armies stationed in central and eastern Europe after World War II. Its original members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Joining the original signatories were Greece and Turkey (1952); West Germany (1955; from 1990 as Germany); Spain (1982); the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland (1999); Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia (2004); Albania and Croatia (2009); and Montenegro (2017). France withdrew from the integrated military command of NATO in 1966 but remained a member of the organization; it resumed its position in NATOs military command in 2009.

The heart of NATO is expressed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, in which the signatory members agree that

an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in 2001, after terrorist attacks organized by exiled Saudi Arabian millionaire Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City and part of the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., killing some 3,000 people.

Article 6 defines the geographic scope of the treaty as covering an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America. Other articles commit the allies to strengthening their democratic institutions, to building their collective military capability, to consulting each other, and to remaining open to inviting other European states to join.

After World War II in 1945, western Europe was economically exhausted and militarily weak (the western Allies had rapidly and drastically reduced their armies at the end of the war), and newly powerful communist parties had arisen in France and Italy. By contrast, the Soviet Union had emerged from the war with its armies dominating all the states of central and eastern Europe, and by 1948 communists under Moscows sponsorship had consolidated their control of the governments of those countries and suppressed all noncommunist political activity. What became known as the Iron Curtain, a term popularized by Winston Churchill, had descended over central and eastern Europe. Further, wartime cooperation between the western Allies and the Soviets had completely broken down. Each side was organizing its own sector of occupied Germany, so that two German states would emerge, a democratic one in the west and a communist one in the east.

In 1948 the United States launched the Marshall Plan, which infused massive amounts of economic aid to the countries of western and southern Europe on the condition that they cooperate with each other and engage in joint planning to hasten their mutual recovery. As for military recovery, under the Brussels Treaty of 1948, the United Kingdom, France, and the Low CountriesBelgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourgconcluded a collective-defense agreement called the Western European Union. It was soon recognized, however, that a more formidable alliance would be required to provide an adequate military counterweight to the Soviets.

By this time Britain, Canada, and the United States had already engaged in secret exploratory talks on security arrangements that would serve as an alternative to the United Nations (UN), which was becoming paralyzed by the rapidly emerging Cold War. In March 1948, following a virtual communist coup dtat in Czechoslovakia in February, the three governments began discussions on a multilateral collective-defense scheme that would enhance Western security and promote democratic values. These discussions were eventually joined by France, the Low Countries, and Norway and in April 1949 resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty.

Spurred by the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950, the United States took steps to demonstrate that it would resist any Soviet military expansion or pressures in Europe. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the leader of the Allied forces in western Europe in World War II, was named Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) by the North Atlantic Council (NATOs governing body) in December 1950. He was followed as SACEUR by a succession of American generals.

The North Atlantic Council, which was established soon after the treaty came into effect, is composed of ministerial representatives of the member states, who meet at least twice a year. At other times the council, chaired by the NATO secretary-general, remains in permanent session at the ambassadorial level. Just as the position of SACEUR has always been held by an American, the secretary-generalship has always been held by a European.

NATOs military organization encompasses a complete system of commands for possible wartime use. The Military Committee, consisting of representatives of the military chiefs of staff of the member states, subsumes two strategic commands: Allied Command Operations (ACO) and Allied Command Transformation (ACT). ACO is headed by the SACEUR and located at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Casteau, Belgium. ACT is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, U.S. During the alliances first 20 years, more than $3 billion worth of infrastructure for NATO forcesbases, airfields, pipelines, communications networks, depotswas jointly planned, financed, and built, with about one-third of the funding from the United States. NATO funding generally is not used for the procurement of military equipment, which is provided by the member statesthough the NATO Airborne Early Warning Force, a fleet of radar-bearing aircraft designed to protect against a surprise low-flying attack, was funded jointly.

A serious issue confronting NATO in the early and mid-1950s was the negotiation of West Germanys participation in the alliance. The prospect of a rearmed Germany was understandably greeted with widespread unease and hesitancy in western Europe, but the countrys strength had long been recognized as necessary to protect western Europe from a possible Soviet invasion. Accordingly, arrangements for West Germanys safe participation in the alliance were worked out as part of the Paris Agreements of October 1954, which ended the occupation of West German territory by the western Allies and provided for both the limitation of West German armaments and the countrys accession to the Brussels Treaty. In May 1955 West Germany joined NATO, which prompted the Soviet Union to form the Warsaw Pact alliance in central and eastern Europe the same year. The West Germans subsequently contributed many divisions and substantial air forces to the NATO alliance. By the time the Cold War ended, some 900,000 troopsnearly half of them from six countries (United States, United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands)were stationed in West Germany.

Frances relationship with NATO became strained after 1958, as President Charles de Gaulle increasingly criticized the organizations domination by the United States and the intrusion upon French sovereignty by NATOs many international staffs and activities. He argued that such integration subjected France to automatic war at the decision of foreigners. In July 1966 France formally withdrew from the military command structure of NATO and required NATO forces and headquarters to leave French soil; nevertheless, de Gaulle proclaimed continued French adherence to the North Atlantic Treaty in case of unprovoked aggression. After NATO moved its headquarters from Paris to Brussels, France maintained a liaison relationship with NATOs integrated military staffs, continued to sit in the council, and continued to maintain and deploy ground forces in West Germany, though it did so under new bilateral agreements with the West Germans rather than under NATO jurisdiction. In 2009 France rejoined the military command structure of NATO.

From its founding, NATOs primary purpose was to unify and strengthen the Western Allies military response to a possible invasion of western Europe by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. In the early 1950s NATO relied partly on the threat of massive nuclear retaliation from the United States to counter the Warsaw Pacts much larger ground forces. Beginning in 1957, this policy was supplemented by the deployment of American nuclear weapons in western European bases. NATO later adopted a flexible response strategy, which the United States interpreted to mean that a war in Europe did not have to escalate to an all-out nuclear exchange. Under this strategy, many Allied forces were equipped with American battlefield and theatre nuclear weapons under a dual-control (or dual-key) system, which allowed both the country hosting the weapons and the United States to veto their use. Britain retained control of its strategic nuclear arsenal but brought it within NATOs planning structures; Frances nuclear forces remained completely autonomous.

A conventional and nuclear stalemate between the two sides continued through the construction of the Berlin Wall in the early 1960s, dtente in the 1970s, and the resurgence of Cold War tensions in the 1980s after the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the election of U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1980. After 1985, however, far-reaching economic and political reforms introduced by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev fundamentally altered the status quo. In July 1989 Gorbachev announced that Moscow would no longer prop up communist governments in central and eastern Europe and thereby signaled his tacit acceptance of their replacement by freely elected (and noncommunist) administrations. Moscows abandonment of control over central and eastern Europe meant the dissipation of much of the military threat that the Warsaw Pact had formerly posed to western Europe, a fact that led some to question the need to retain NATO as a military organizationespecially after the Warsaw Pacts dissolution in 1991. The reunification of Germany in October 1990 and its retention of NATO membership created both a need and an opportunity for NATO to be transformed into a more political alliance devoted to maintaining international stability in Europe.

After the Cold War, NATO was reconceived as a cooperative-security organization whose mandate was to include two main objectives: to foster dialogue and cooperation with former adversaries in the Warsaw Pact and to manage conflicts in areas on the European periphery, such as the Balkans. In keeping with the first objective, NATO established the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991; later replaced by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council) to provide a forum for the exchange of views on political and security issues, as well as the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program (1994) to enhance European security and stability through joint military training exercises with NATO and non-NATO states, including the former Soviet republics and allies. Special cooperative links were also set up with two PfP countries: Russia and Ukraine.

The second objective entailed NATOs first use of military force, when it entered the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 by staging air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions around the capital city of Sarajevo. The subsequent Dayton Accords, which were initialed by representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, committed each state to respecting the others sovereignty and to settling disputes peacefully; it also laid the groundwork for stationing NATO peacekeeping troops in the region. A 60,000-strong Implementation Force (IFOR) was initially deployed, though a smaller contingent remained in Bosnia under a different name, the Stabilization Force (SFOR). In March 1999 NATO launched massive air strikes against Serbia in an attempt to force the Yugoslav government of Slobodan Miloevi to accede to diplomatic provisions designed to protect the predominantly Muslim Albanian population in the province of Kosovo. Under the terms of a negotiated settlement to the fighting, NATO deployed a peacekeeping force called the Kosovo Force (KFOR).

The crisis over Kosovo and the ensuing war gave renewed impetus to efforts by the European Union (EU) to construct a new crisis-intervention force, which would make the EU less dependent on NATO and U.S. military resources for conflict management. These efforts prompted significant debates about whether enhancing the EUs defensive capabilities would strengthen or weaken NATO. Simultaneously there was much discussion of the future of NATO in the post-Cold War era. Some observers argued that the alliance should be dissolved, noting that it was created to confront an enemy that no longer existed; others called for a broad expansion of NATO membership to include Russia. Most suggested alternative roles, including peacekeeping. By the start of the second decade of the 21st century, it appeared likely that the EU would not develop capabilities competitive with those of NATO or even seek to do so; as a result, earlier worries associated with the spectre of rivalry between the two Brussels-based organizations dissipated.

During the presidency of Bill Clinton (19932001), the United States led an initiative to enlarge NATO membership gradually to include some of the former Soviet allies. In the concurrent debate over enlargement, supporters of the initiative argued that NATO membership was the best way to begin the long process of integrating these states into regional political and economic institutions such as the EU. Some also feared future Russian aggression and suggested that NATO membership would guarantee freedom and security for the newly democratic regimes. Opponents pointed to the enormous cost of modernizing the military forces of new members; they also argued that enlargement, which Russia would regard as a provocation, would hinder democracy in that country and enhance the influence of hard-liners. Despite these disagreements, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia were admitted in 2004; and Albania and Croatia acceded to the alliance in 2009.

Meanwhile, by the beginning of the 21st century, Russia and NATO had formed a strategic relationship. No longer considered NATOs chief enemy, Russia cemented a new cooperative bond with NATO in 2001 to address such common concerns as international terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, and arms control. This bond was subsequently subject to fraying, however, in large part because of reasons associated with Russian domestic politics.

Events following the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 led to the forging of a new dynamic within the alliance, one that increasingly favoured the military engagement of members outside Europe, initially with a mission against Taliban forces in Afghanistan beginning in the summer of 2003 and subsequently with air operations against the regime of Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya in early 2011. As a result of the increased tempo of military operations undertaken by the alliance, the long-standing issue of burden sharing was revived, with some officials warning that failure to share the costs of NATO operations more equitably would lead to unraveling of the alliance. Most observers regarded that scenario as unlikely, however.

See the original post:

NATO | Founders, Members, & History | Britannica.com

Member states of NATO – Wikipedia

NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is an international alliance that consists of 29 member states from North America and Europe. It was established at the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. Article Five of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.[1]

Of the 29 member countries, two are located in North America (Canada and the United States) and 27 are European countries while Turkey is in Eurasia. All members have militaries, except for Iceland which does not have a typical army (but does, however, have a coast guard and a small unit of civilian specialists for NATO operations). Three of NATO’s members are nuclear weapons states: France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. NATO has 12 original founding member nation states, and from 18 February 1952 to 6 May 1955, it added three more member nations, and a fourth on 30 May 1982. After the end of the Cold War, NATO added 13 more member nations (10 former Warsaw Pact members and three former Yugoslav republics) from 12 March 1999 to 5 June 2017.

NATO has added new members seven times since its founding in 1949, and since 2017 NATO has had 29 members. Twelve countries were part of the founding of NATO: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In 1952, Greece and Turkey became members of the Alliance, joined later by West Germany (in 1955) and Spain (in 1982). In 1990, with the reunification of Germany, NATO grew to include the former country of East Germany. Between 1994 and 1997, wider forums for regional cooperation between NATO and its neighbors were set up, including the Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue initiative and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. In 1997, three former Warsaw Pact countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO. After this fourth enlargement in 1999, the Vilnius group of The Baltics and seven East European countries formed in May 2000 to cooperate and lobby for further NATO membership. Seven of these countries joined in the fifth enlargement in 2004. The Adriatic States Albania and Croatia joined in the sixth enlargement in 2009, Montenegro in 2017.

Due to the 201617 Turkish purges and Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s authoritarian politics some have speculated that Turkey could be expelled from NATO.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] United States President Donald Trump has also expressed interest in withdrawing from the organization during the 2016 election campaign, and only recently stated the United States would protect allies in the event that Article V is invoked.[10][11][12]

The United States spends more on the organization than all other members combined.[14] Criticism of the organization by then newly elected US President Donald Trump caused various reactions from American and European political figures, ranging from ridicule to panic.[15][16][17] Pew Research Center’s 2016 survey among its member states showed that while most countries viewed NATO positively, most NATO members preferred keeping their military spending the same. The response to whether their country should militarily aid another NATO country if it were to get into a serious military conflict with Russia was also mixed. Only in the US and Canada did more than 50% of the people answer that they should.[18][19]

Population data from CIA World FactbookGDP data from IMF[21]Expenditure data (except Iceland) from SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,[22] Icelandic data (2013) from Statistics Iceland[23]Military personnel data from NATO[24]a Iceland has no armed forces.b 2015 data.

The rest is here:

Member states of NATO – Wikipedia

Jordan Peterson – Wikipedia

Jordan PetersonBornJordan Bernt Peterson(1962-06-12) June 12, 1962 (age55)Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaResidenceToronto, Ontario, CanadaNationalityCanadianEducationPolitical science (B.A., 1982)Psychology (B.A., 1984)Clinical psychology (Ph.D., 1991)AlmamaterSpouse(s)Tammy Roberts (m.1989)Children2Scientific careerFieldsPsychologyInstitutionsThesisPotential psychological markers for the predisposition to alcoholism(1991)Doctoral advisorRobert O. PihlInfluencesJung, Freud, Piaget, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, SolzhenitsynWebsitejordanbpeterson.comSignature

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist, public intellectual, and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are in abnormal, social, and personality psychology,[1] with a particular interest in the psychology of religious and ideological belief,[2] and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.[3]

Peterson studied at the University of Alberta and McGill University. He remained at McGill as a post-doctoral fellow from 1991 to 1993 before moving to Harvard University, where he was assistant and then associate professor in the psychology department. In 1998, he moved back in Canada to the University of Toronto as a full professor.

His first book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief was published in 1999, a work which examined several academic fields to describe the structure of systems of beliefs and myths, their role in the regulation of emotion, creation of meaning, and motivation for genocide.[4][5][6] His second book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, was released in January 2018.[7][8][9]

In 2016, Peterson released a series of videos on his YouTube channel in which he criticized political correctness and the Canadian government’s Bill C-16. He subsequently received significant media coverage.[7][8][9]

Peterson was born on June 12, 1962, and grew up in Fairview, Alberta, a small town northwest of his birthplace Edmonton, in Canada. He was the eldest of three children born to Beverley, a librarian at the Fairview campus of Grande Prairie Regional College, and Walter Peterson, a schoolteacher.[10] His middle name is Bernt ( BAIRNT), after his Norwegian great-grandfather.[11][12]

When he was 13, he was introduced to the writings of George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Ayn Rand by his school librarian Sandy Notley mother of Rachel Notley, leader of the Alberta New Democratic Party and 17th Premier of Alberta.[13] He also worked for the New Democratic Party (NDP) throughout his teenage years, but grew disenchanted with the party due to what he saw as a preponderance of “the intellectual, tweed-wearing middle-class socialist” who “didn’t like the poor; they just hated the rich”.[10] He left the NDP at age 18.[14]

After graduating from Fairview High School in 1979, Peterson entered the Grande Prairie Regional College to study political science and English literature.[2] He later transferred to the University of Alberta, where he completed his B.A. in 1982.[14] Afterwards, he took a year off to visit Europe. There he developed an interest in the psychological origins of the Cold War, particularly 20th century European totalitarianism,[2][15] and was plagued by apocalyptic nightmares about the escalation of the nuclear arms race. As a result, he became concerned about mankind’s capacity for evil and destruction, and delved into the works of Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,[10] and Fyodor Dostoyevsky.[15] He then returned to the University of Alberta and received a B.A. in psychology in 1984.[16] In 1985, he moved to Montreal to attend McGill University. He earned his Ph.D. in clinical psychology under the supervision of Robert O. Pihl in 1991, and remained as a post-doctoral fellow at McGill’s Douglas Hospital until June 1993, working with Pihl and Maurice Dongier.[2][17]

From July 1993 to June 1998,[1] Peterson lived in Arlington, Massachusetts, while teaching and conducting research at Harvard University as an assistant and an associate professor in the psychology department. During his time at Harvard, he studied aggression arising from drug and alcohol abuse and supervised a number of unconventional thesis proposals.[14] Two former Ph.D. students, Shelley Carson, a psychologist and teacher from Harvard, and author Gregg Hurwitz recalled that Peterson’s lectures were already highly admired by the students.[8] In July 1998, he returned to Canada and took up a post as a full professor at the University of Toronto.[1][16]

Peterson’s areas of study and research are in the fields of psychopharmacology, abnormal, neuro, clinical, personality, social, industrial and organizational,[1] religious, ideological,[2] political, and creativity psychology.[3] Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers.[18] Peterson has over 20 years of clinical practice, seeing 20 people a week, but in 2017, he decided to put the practice on hold because of new projects.[7]

In 2004, a 13-part TV series based on Peterson’s book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief aired on TVOntario.[10][16][19] He has also appeared on that network on shows such as Big Ideas, and as a frequent guest and essayist on The Agenda with Steve Paikin since 2008.[20][21]

Jordan Peterson, 1998 (Descensus ad Inferos)[22]

In 1999, Routledge published Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. The book, which took Peterson 13 years to complete, describes a comprehensive theory about how people construct meaning, beliefs and make narratives using ideas from various fields including mythology, religion, literature, philosophy and psychology in accordance to the modern scientific understanding of how the brain functions.[14][22][23]

According to Peterson, his main goal was to examine why both individuals and groups participate in social conflict, explore the reasoning and motivation individuals take to support their belief systems (i.e. ideological identification[14]) that eventually results in killing and pathological atrocities like the Gulag, the Auschwitz concentration camp and the Rwandan genocide.[14][22][23] He considers that an “analysis of the world’s religious ideas might allow us to describe our essential morality and eventually develop a universal system of morality”.[23]

In January 2018, Penguin Random House published Peterson’s second book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. The work contains abstract ethical principles about life, in a more accessible style than Maps of Meaning.[7][8][9] To promote the book, Peterson went on a world tour.[24][25][26] As part of the tour, Peterson was interviewed by Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News. In a short time the interview received considerable attention and over seven million views on YouTube.[27][28][29] The book was ranked the number one bestselling book on Amazon in the United States and Canada and number four in the United Kingdom.[30][31] It also topped bestselling lists in Canada, US and the United Kingdom.[32][33]

In 2013, Peterson began recording his lectures (“Personality and Its Transformations”, “Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief”[34]) and uploading them to YouTube. His YouTube channel has gathered more than 1 million subscribers and his videos have received more than 50 million views as of April 2018.[35] In January 2017, he hired a production team to film his psychology lectures at the University of Toronto. He used funds received via the crowdfunding website Patreon after he became embroiled in the Bill C-16 controversy in September 2016. His funding through Patreon has increased from $1,000 per month in August 2016 to $14,000 by January 2017, and then to more than $50,000 by July 2017.[13][35][36]

Peterson has appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, The Gavin McInnes Show, Steven Crowder’s Louder with Crowder, Dave Rubin’s The Rubin Report, Stefan Molyneux’s Freedomain Radio, h3h3Productions’s H3 Podcast, Sam Harris’s Waking Up podcast, Gad Saad’s The Saad Truth series and other online shows.[37] In December 2016, Peterson started his own podcast, The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast, which has 43 episodes as of April 2, 2018, including academic guests such as Camille Paglia, Martin Daly, and James W. Pennebaker,[38] while on his channel he has also interviewed Stephen Hicks, Richard J. Haier, and Jonathan Haidt among others. Peterson supported engineer James Damore in his action against Google.[9]

In May 2017, Peterson began The Psychological Significance of the Biblical stories,[39] a series of live theatre lectures, also published as podcasts, in which he analyzes archetypal narratives in Genesis as patterns of behavior ostensibly vital for personal, social and cultural stability.[9][40]

Peterson and his colleagues Robert O. Pihl, Daniel Higgins, and Michaela Schippers[41] produced a writing therapy program with series of online writing exercises, titled the Self Authoring Suite.[42] It includes the Past Authoring Program, a guided autobiography; two Present Authoring Programs, which allow the participant to analyze their personality faults and virtues in terms of the Big Five personality model; and the Future Authoring Program, which guides participants through the process of planning their desired futures. The latter program was used with McGill University undergraduates on academic probation to improve their grades, as well since 2011 at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University.[43][44] The Self Authoring Programs were developed partially from research by James W. Pennebaker at the University of Texas at Austin and Gary Latham at the Rotman School of Management of the University of Toronto. Pennebaker demonstrated that writing about traumatic or uncertain events and situations improved mental and physical health, while Latham demonstrated that personal planning exercises help make people more productive.[44] According to Peterson, more than 10,000 students have used the program as of January 2017, with drop-out rates decreasing by 25% and GPAs rising by 20%.[10]

Peterson’s critiques of political correctness range over issues such as postmodernism, postmodern feminism, white privilege, cultural appropriation, and environmentalism.[37][45][46] Writing in the National Post, Chris Selley said Peterson’s opponents had “underestimated the fury being inspired by modern preoccupations like white privilege and cultural appropriation, and by the marginalization, shouting down or outright cancellation of other viewpoints in polite society’s institutions”,[47] while in The Spectator, Tim Lott stated Peterson became “an outspoken critic of mainstream academia”.[15] Peterson’s social media presence has magnified the impact of these views; Simona Chiose of The Globe and Mail noted: “few University of Toronto professors in the humanities and social sciences have enjoyed the global name recognition Prof. Peterson has won”.[48]

According to his study conducted with one of his students, Christine Brophy of the relationship between political belief and personality, political correctness exists in two types: PC-egalitarianism and PC-authoritarianism, which is a manifestation of “offense sensitivity”.[49] The first type is represented by a group of classical liberals, while the latter by the group known as “social justice warriors”[10] who “weaponize compassion”.[2] The study also found an overlap between PC-authoritarians and right-wing authoritarians.[49]

Peterson considers that the universities should be held as among the most responsible for the wave of political correctness which appeared in North America and Europe.[48] He watched the rise of political correctness on campuses since the early 1990s,[50] and considers that the humanities have become corrupt, less reliant on science, and instead of “intelligent conversation, we are having an ideological conversation”. From his own experience as a university professor, he states that the students who are coming to his classes are uneducated and unaware about the mass exterminations and crimes by Stalinism and Maoism, which were not given the same attention as fascism and Nazism. He also says that “instead of being ennobled or inculcated into the proper culture, the last vestiges of structure are stripped from [the students] by post-modernism and neo-Marxism, which defines everything in terms of relativism and power”.[15][51][52]

Peterson, 2017[51]

Peterson states that postmodern philosophers and sociologists since the 1960s,[45] while typically claiming to reject Marxism and communism, have actually built upon and extended their core tenets. He says that it is difficult to understand contemporary society without considering the influence of postmodernism which initially spread from France to the United States through the English department at Yale University. He argues that they “started to play a sleight of hand, and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class, against the bourgeois, they started to pit the oppressed against the oppressor. That opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name[…] The people who hold this doctrine this radical, postmodern, communitarian doctrine that makes racial identity or sexual identity or gender identity or some kind of group identity paramount they’ve got control over most low-to-mid level bureaucratic structures, and many governments as well”.[51][18]

He emphasizes that the state should halt funding to faculties and courses he describes as neo-Marxist, and advises students to avoid disciplines like women’s studies, ethnic studies and racial studies, as well other fields of study he believes are “corrupted” by the ideology such as sociology, anthropology and English literature.[53][54] He states that these fields, under the pretense of academic inquiry, propagate unscientific methods, fraudulent peer-review processes for academic journals, publications that garner zero citations,[55] cult-like behaviour,[53] safe-spaces,[56] and radical left-wing political activism for students.[45] Peterson has proposed launching a website which uses artificial intelligence to identify and showcase the amount of ideologization in specific courses. He announced in November 2017 that he had temporarily postponed the project as “it might add excessively to current polarization”.[57][58]

Peterson has criticized the use of the term “white privilege”, stating that “being called out on their white privilege, identified with a particular racial group and then made to suffer the consequences of the existence of that racial group and its hypothetical crimes, and that sort of thing has to come to a stop. […][It’s] racist in its extreme.”[45] In response to the 2017 protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, he criticized the far right’s use of identity politics, and said that “the Caucasians shouldn’t revert to being white. It’s a bad idea, it’s a dangerous idea, and it’s coming fast, and I don’t like to see that!” He stated that the notion of group identity is “seriously pathological[…] reprehensible[…] genocidal” and “it will bring down our civilization if we pursue it”.[59] He has also been prominent in the debate about cultural appropriation, stating it promotes self-censorship in society and journalism.[60]

On September 27, 2016, Peterson released the first installment of a three-part lecture video series, entitled “Professor against political correctness: Part I: Fear and the Law”.[13][61] In the video, he stated he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty as part of compelled speech, and announced his objection to the Canadian government’s Bill C-16, which proposed to add “gender identity or expression” as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to similarly expand the definitions of promoting genocide and publicly inciting hatred in the Criminal Code.[61][62]

He stated that his objection to the bill was based on potential free speech implications if the Criminal Code is amended, as he claimed he could then be prosecuted under provincial human rights laws if he refuses to call a transsexual student or faculty member by the individual’s preferred pronoun.[63] Furthermore, he argued that the new amendments paired with section 46.3 of the Ontario Human Rights Code would make it possible for employers and organizations to be subject to punishment under the code if any employee or associate says anything that can be construed “directly or indirectly” as offensive, “whether intentionally or unintentionally”.[64] Other academics challenged Peterson’s interpretation of C-16,[63] while some scholars such as Robert P. George supported Peterson’s initiative.[13]

The series of videos drew criticism from transgender activists, faculty and labour unions, and critics accused Peterson of “helping to foster a climate for hate to thrive”.[13] Protests erupted on campus, some including violence, and the controversy attracted international media attention.[65][66][67] When asked in September 2016 if he would comply with the request of a student to use a preferred pronoun, Peterson said “it would depend on how they asked me[…] If I could detect that there was a chip on their shoulder, or that they were [asking me] with political motives, then I would probably say no[…] If I could have a conversation like the one we’re having now, I could probably meet them on an equal level”.[67] Two months later, the National Post published an op-ed by Peterson in which he elaborated on his opposition to the bill and explained why he publicly made a stand against it:

I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period.[68]

In response to the controversy, academic administrators at the University of Toronto sent Peterson two letters of warning, one noting that free speech had to be made in accordance with human rights legislation and the other adding that his refusal to use the preferred personal pronouns of students and faculty upon request could constitute discrimination. Peterson speculated that these warning letters were leading up to formal disciplinary action against him, but in December the university assured him that he would retain his professorship, and in January 2017 he returned to teach his psychology class at the University of Toronto.[13]

In February 2017, Maxime Bernier, candidate for leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, stated that he shifted his position on Bill C-16, from support to opposition, after meeting with Peterson and discussing it.[69] Peterson’s analysis of the bill was also frequently cited by senators who were opposed to its passage.[70]

In April 2017, Peterson was denied a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant for the first time in his career, which he interpreted as retaliation for his statements regarding Bill C-16.[71] A media relations adviser for SSHRC said “[c]ommittees assess only the information contained in the application”.[72] In response, The Rebel Media launched an Indiegogo campaign on Peterson’s behalf.[73] The campaign raised $195,000 by its end on May 6, equivalent to over two years of research funding.[74]

In May 2017, Peterson spoke against Bill C-16 at a Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs hearing. He was one of 24 witnesses who were invited to speak on the bill.[70]

In August 2017, an announced event at Ryerson University titled “The Stifling of Free Speech on University Campuses”, organized by former social worker Sarina Singh with panelists Peterson, Gad Saad, Oren Amitay, and Faith Goldy was shut down because of pressure on the university administration from the group “No Fascists in Our City”.[75] However, another version of the panel (without Goldy) was held on November 11 at Canada Christian College with an audience of 1,500.[76][77]

In November 2017, a teaching assistant (TA) at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) was censured by her professors and WLU’s Manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support for showing a segment of The Agenda, which featured Peterson debating Bill C-16, during a classroom discussion.[78][79][80] The reasons given for the censure included the clip creating a “toxic climate” and being itself in violation of Bill C-16.[81] The case was criticized by several newspaper editorial boards[82][83][84] and national newspaper columnists[85][86][87][88] as an example of the suppression of free speech on university campuses. WLU announced a third-party investigation.[89] After the release of the audio recording of the meeting in which the TA was censured,[90] WLU President Deborah MacLatchy and the TA’s supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana published letters of formal apology.[91][92][93] According to the investigation no students had complained about the lesson, there was no informal concern related to Laurier policy, and according to MacLatchy the meeting “never should have happened at all”.[94][95]

Peterson married Tammy Roberts in 1989.[13] They have one daughter and one son.[10][13] He became a grandfather in August 2017.[96]

Politically, Peterson has described himself as a classic British liberal.[97][15] He is a philosophical pragmatist.[40] In a 2017 interview, Peterson identified as a Christian,[98] but in 2018 he did not.[99] He emphasized his conceptualization of Christianity is probably not what it is generally understood, stating that the ethical responsibility of a Christian is to imitate Christ, for him meaning “something like you need to take responsibility for the evil in the world as if you were responsible for it[…] to understand that you determine the direction of the world, whether its toward heaven or hell”.[99] When asked if he believes in God, Peterson responded: “I think the proper response to that is No, but I’m afraid He might exist”.[7] Writing for The Spectator, Tim Lott said Peterson draws inspiration from Jung’s philosophy of religion, and holds views similar to the Christian existentialism of Sren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Lott also said Peterson has respect for Taoism, as it views nature as a struggle between order and chaos, and posits that life would be meaningless without this duality.[15]

Read the original:

Jordan Peterson – Wikipedia

Peterson Institute for International Economics

Policy Brief

How to Solve the Greek Debt Problem

Jeromin Zettelmeyer (PIIE), Emilios Avgouleas (University of Edinburgh), Barry Eichengreen (University of California, Berkeley), Miguel Poiares Maduro (European University Institute, Florence), Ugo Panizza (Graduate Institute, Geneva), Richard Portes (London Business School), Beatrice Weder di Mauro (INSEAD, Singapore) and Charles Wyplosz (Graduate Institute, Geneva)

See the rest here:

Peterson Institute for International Economics

Petersen Automotive Museum | Los Angeles Museum | Petersen

Take a behind the scenes tour of some of the most unique cars in the collection that are not on display in the museum galleries. The Vault is home to cars representing over 100 years of automotive history, some of which have rarely been seen by the public. A docent will guide you through the Vault while sharing stories about a selection of the cars in our diverse collection. On the tour, you will see turn-of-the-twentieth-century cars, head-of-state cars, cars belonging to Hollywood legends, award-winning hot rods, cars that pushed the boundaries of innovation, and many other surprises.

See more here:

Petersen Automotive Museum | Los Angeles Museum | Petersen