Member People & Media
MemberForum Replies Created
-
This piece explores the concept of obsession, not as a negative trait, but as a powerful, persistent preoccupation with one’s goals that can redefine the path to success. It challenges societal views, suggesting that an unreasonable focus on personal achievement is actually a key ingredient for creating something significant.
Key Takeaways
- Obsession, defined as a persistent, disturbing preoccupation with an idea or feeling, should be applied unreasonably to your pursuit of success.
- This kind of obsession is not inherently bad and is central to achieving significant goals.
- Without obsession, people tend to go through the motions, forgetting their aspirations and who they want to become.
Redefining Obsession
So, what exactly is obsession? According to Merriam-Webster, it’s a persistent, disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling. Think about that for a second: a persistent worry, a preoccupation with an idea or feeling that might seem unreasonable to others. Now, what if I told you that this is precisely the kind of mindset you should have when it comes to success?
It sounds a bit wild, right? The idea that success should be unreasonable. But stick with me here. Having this kind of obsession isn’t a bad thing. Society often tells us that being too focused on ourselves or our goals is wrong. But honestly, there’s nothing wrong with being unreasonably preoccupied with your own goals, with your own successes.
The Core of Creation
Why? Because obsession is actually at the core of someone’s ability to create something. Think about anyone who has achieved something remarkable. Chances are, they were pretty obsessed with it. If more people were truly obsessed with their goals, they wouldn’t just let them slip away. It’s easy to just go through the motions every single day, day in and day out. We get caught up in the routine, and before we know it, we forget who we wanted to become. We forget our aspirations because we’re not obsessed enough to keep them front and center.
-
This article explores how men can build stronger, safer relationships by understanding the unique needs of women. It breaks down the biological and emotional differences between men and women, explaining why a man’s presence, controlled strength, and consistent desire are key to a woman feeling secure and loved. The focus is on leading with calm, firm guidance rather than punishment or weakness.
Key Takeaways
- Women’s nervous systems react differently to stress than men’s; they seek connection and reassurance.
- A man’s presence—listening, responding, and staying grounded—is more important than perfection.
- Consistent desire and making a woman feel chosen are vital for her sense of safety.
- True strength in a man is controlled and protective, not aggressive or weak.
- Guidance and firm leadership are needed, not punishment or emotional withdrawal.
- When a woman is struggling, a man’s calm support helps her feel safe.
- A man sets the tone for the relationship through his steady, protective presence.
Understanding Her Nervous System
A real man knows that treating a woman is different from how he handles the rest of the world. The world might demand toughness, but a woman needs something else entirely. Her nervous system just isn’t built like a man’s. When men face pressure, they tend to handle it externally, maybe getting quiet. But when a woman is stressed, it often comes out emotionally. Think about it: if a man loses his job, he might shut down and try to fix it alone. But if a woman is overwhelmed, she usually looks for connection, a chance to vent, or some grounding reassurance.
This difference is a big deal. When you raise your voice at a woman, it might feel like just frustration to you, but to her, it can feel like real danger. Her body can literally go into survival mode. That’s just biology. This is why your tone of voice matters so much more than the actual words you say.
Her Need for Your Presence, Not Perfection
Women aren’t looking for a perfect guy. What they really want is a present one. What does presence mean? It means looking at her when she talks, listening without immediately trying to fix things, and responding thoughtfully instead of just reacting. It means staying calm when she’s feeling chaotic and genuinely trying to understand her perspective.
Imagine she comes home upset about work. A common mistake is to say something like, "Why are you overreacting? Just ignore them." That’s not what her nervous system needs first. What she needs is connection. The right response is to invite her to share, maybe with a gentle voice, eye contact, and a comforting touch. That’s presence.
Desire: Not Optional for Her Safety
For a woman to feel safe, she needs to feel wanted, desired, and chosen. If she senses that you’ve stopped desiring her, she might worry that you’ve stopped wanting her, and therefore, stopped protecting the relationship. This can lead to panic. Men sometimes get comfortable and stop complimenting, touching, or actively pursuing their partners. She doesn’t see this as just tiredness; she might interpret it as a sign that you don’t want her anymore. A lack of desire can feel like emotional abandonment to a woman. A man who understands this keeps that spark alive.
The Balance of Softness and Strength
What makes a woman feel safe isn’t weakness; it’s controlled strength. You need to be soft enough for her to feel comfortable and vulnerable, yet strong enough for her to trust you completely. Consider a couple walking at night, and someone with bad intentions approaches. A weak man might panic. An aggressive man might escalate the situation. A real man, however, would calmly step forward, position himself protectively in front of her, and signal with his body that the threat must go through him first. That kind of controlled confidence tells her, "I am safe with this man."
Teaching, Not Punishment
This is where many men fall short. A woman needs structure, guidance, and direction, but never punishment. Firmness isn’t about yelling or threatening to leave. It’s about clarity. For example, if she speaks disrespectfully in public, a weak man might let it slide, and an aggressive man might explode. A real man, however, would wait until they are alone and calmly state, "Do not speak to me that way again. I respect you, and I expect the same. We are better than this." That’s leadership and teaching. Women thrive under masculine firmness, not punishment.
Handling Her When She’s Struggling
When a woman cries, panics, or spirals emotionally, she’s not testing you. She’s showing you her most vulnerable side and seeing if you can handle it. If she says, "I can’t do this. Everything feels like it’s falling apart," avoid reactions like "Stop being dramatic" or "Calm down." Instead, the right response is to offer comfort: "Come here. You’re not alone. We’ll handle it together." Your calm, steady, and gentle presence becomes her oxygen, allowing her to relax.
The Rule Every Man Should Live By
You can raise your voice at the world if you need to, but never at her. Your home should be your sanctuary of peace, protection, passion, and guidance. A man isn’t measured by how loud he is, but by how safe the woman beside him feels. Ultimately, a woman flourishes with tenderness, desire, and leadership. Without them, she can falter. Treating a woman with gentleness, strength, firmness, protection, and desire can lead to a depth of love most men never experience. A man’s true power lies not in his hardness, but in how gently he holds what he is strong enough to protect. Men are the rock, the foundation, and it’s up to them to lead and set the tone for the relationship.
-
📚 Related Articles
- Amy Porterfield Net Worth 2026: How the Online Marketing Queen Built a $130 Million Digital Empire
- The 250-Year Empire Cycle: What the Rise and Fall of Great Powers Reveals About America’s Position in 2026
- The $2.3 Trillion Energy Revolution: How Infrastructure Investment Is Reshaping Global Power Grids in 2026
-
Society tells us that being self-obsessed is a bad thing – that it’s selfish, narcissistic, and even toxic. But what if I told you that self-obsession is actually the secret to winning in life? I’ve built a nine-figure company from scratch, married the man of my dreams, and I’m living the life I always wanted. And I can tell you, every single major win in my life came from being relentlessly self-obsessed. I was obsessed with my growth, my goals, and my future. That obsession is what got me here.
So, here are the five principles of self-obsession that will change how you think about achieving your goals and completely transform your life. But first, let’s get clear on what self-obsession really means. Most people get this completely wrong. According to Merriam-Webster, obsession is a persistent, disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling. And I love that definition because ‘disturbing’ means to worry. So, a persistent worry, a preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling – that’s exactly what you should have when it comes to success. It should be unreasonable to most people that you are successful. But that doesn’t mean you have to be reasonable about your lack of success.
Having this obsession isn’t a bad thing. Despite what society wants us to believe, there’s nothing wrong with being unreasonably preoccupied with your own goals and successes. Obsession is actually at the core of someone’s ability to create something. If more people were obsessed, they wouldn’t just forget they have goals. Imagine if you didn’t forget you were obsessed with getting a six-pack – you wouldn’t start eating candy and think, ‘Oh shoot, I forgot about my six-pack goals.’
Often, people just go through the motions every single day, forgetting who they want to become because they aren’t obsessed. But having this obsession to be successful, to have the life you want, creates a constant drive because no one else is going to do it for you. Another definition I love is an intense, persistent focus or fixation on a person, idea, or a goal that dominates your thoughts and actions. Sign me up for that! The version of you that you want to become should dominate your thoughts and actions. If it doesn’t, what does? Outside influences? People telling you what they want? Society telling you who you should be? Instead, you should have your own obsession about what success looks like for you.
Self-obsession has nothing to do with being selfish. It’s about being focused on your own evolution so you can actually have everything you want. The world needs more people who are obsessed with their own growth, not fewer.
Key Takeaways
- Self-obsession is not selfish; it’s about focusing on your own growth to achieve your goals.
- Obsessed individuals don’t need external motivation; their vision is enough.
- Confidence is earned by showing up in uncomfortable situations, not by waiting for it.
- Cutting out external noise (like social media) amplifies your focus on what truly matters.
- Extreme clarity about your goals is the foundation of self-obsession and success.
Principle One: Permission To Be Self-Obsessed
You can’t pour into others if you have nothing to give. I realized how useless I am to my team without my ability to go out and achieve my goals. Just this week, I was able to approve two sponsorships for two different companies that team members asked for donations to. I approved them because I’ve created so much abundance and surplus that I’m in a position to give to others. Nobody asks a broke person to give to their charity because they can’t afford it. People who support charities are those who have created enough excess beyond their own needs.
When I was in college studying social justice, I became overwhelmed by the world’s problems. My solution was to go downtown and feed homeless people. I did this for an entire summer until someone asked, ‘What if you could make a larger impact? Instead of just helping people one by one, what if you could fund projects to help thousands?’ I was shown how to raise money and create charities differently: by having enough money within your business to allocate a portion to causes you care about. I would have likely spent the rest of my life doing one-on-one ‘hand-to-hand combat’ with homeless people, making them feel better for a moment. But could I truly change their lives through just a conversation? Probably not. Could I change their lives by structurally giving them opportunities for housing, skills, and benefits? Certainly.
Being obsessed might sound selfish at first, but it’s only selfish if you don’t eventually convert it to helping others. That’s your responsibility once you’ve figured out this obsession for yourself. If everyone was just a little more obsessed with making their own lives better and being an example for others, the world would be a better place. It would raise the bar and expectations for everyone.
Principle Two: The Obsessed Don’t Need Motivation
I don’t feel like I need outside motivation to get what I want. My own goals, dreams, and ideas of what I want my future to look like are motivating enough. Being able to raise money, invest in businesses, and help people feel more confident through my presence and experience – that’s what drives me. I have a vision of what I want to achieve and who I want to become. This vision creates the plan for me; it drives everything I do.
Most people wait for motivation from podcasts, books, or someone else to light a fire in them. The obsessed don’t need that; they already have the fire because they know what they want. They have a vision so strong they can’t ignore it. They’re obsessed.
I used to look for motivation in the craziest places, like sports movies. There was one movie I watched over and over about a gymnast with incredible discipline. I thought somehow that would translate into real results in my life, but it never did. The motivation never transferred. Watching that movie dozens of times didn’t give me the motivation I needed for a great life. It doesn’t work like that.
If you want unshakable motivation, you have to build a vision of who you want to become, not who someone else is. You have to choose the right goals for you – the ones that get you excited and ready to take the steps required to become the best version of yourself. My favorite way to do this is through an activity called mission, vision, and core values. If you want the template I use to get laser-focused on who I’m becoming, find me on Instagram @NatalieDawson and message me ‘vision.’ Once you have this, give yourself permission to become so obsessed with this future version of you that it drives you every single day.
Principle Three: Obsession Is How You Earn Confidence
Most people have the roadmap to gaining confidence backward. They think that if others are confident, it allows them to do things they can’t currently do. They believe if they had that opportunity, they’d suddenly become confident. It just doesn’t work like that. To become confident, you have to decide what you want and recognize that building confidence comes from showing up in those uncomfortable moments and doing it despite how you feel.
I always wanted to speak on stage with grace and poise. But my current state was someone who didn’t know what they’d even talk about if given the chance. I was terrified of being seen on stage – what would people think? What if I said something dumb? What if I completely froze? I had all these irrational fears. But when I decided I was going to become the person with the skills and confidence to speak on any stage, I had to start putting in the reps. That meant showing up in really small rooms. Every time I was about to go on stage for a panel or a meeting, I’d get nervous and try to cancel. I’d invent reasons why I didn’t want to do it, why it didn’t matter that much, reducing the goal’s importance. Those steps are the goal. Those are the moments you have to lean into, say yes to, and follow through with. If you let yourself down in those moments, you’ll never be ready for the big ones.
There was one time, before I’d ever spoken in front of more than 50 people, when I was given the opportunity to be a panelist in front of 3,000 people. It was last minute, and I wasn’t prepared. My first thought was ‘no.’ I thought, ‘I can’t do this. I’m not ready. What would I say? I don’t look good enough. I’m not smart enough yet.’ I went through all of that. For five minutes, I didn’t respond. Then, after this whole internal debate, I just sent back ‘yes.’ I walked on stage and did what I was supposed to do. Was it the most amazing presentation? Absolutely not. But it built confidence.
So, if you want real confidence, get obsessed. Put in the reps. Say yes to opportunities that feel small and unimportant. That’s how you earn stats, stack wins, and build unshakable self-belief.
Principle Four: Self-Obsession Builds Immunity To The Noise
I recently started cutting out social media almost entirely. I might check it for five minutes a day just to see messages. I had to step back and realize how much influence social media was having on me. I have a stack of books I’ve put off reading for over a month, and that’s not like me. I’m usually interested in learning new things and don’t waste time on TV or social media. But more recently, I just haven’t been doing the things I know I should be doing to move myself ahead.
So, I asked myself, what does social media give me that would feel like a loss if I gave it up? Staying on top of trends? Being in the know about world events? What new lip gloss was about to drop that I absolutely wanted to buy? How silly is that? If I want to buy lip gloss, I can do that. If I want to be on top of a trend, that seems silly because I know my own style and what I like to buy. Why do I need someone else telling me those things? And getting caught up in anyone else’s life affairs, especially strangers’, seems ridiculous because my own life is interesting, as is yours.
I literally stopped checking my socials, and it’s been a fantastic break. I’m not influenced by anyone else’s thoughts or priorities outside my own. The internet can distract you and connect you to a world that doesn’t actually exist around you. When I drive from my house to my office, it’s just me in the car. But the internet introduces all sorts of interesting ideas and thoughts. The internet is amazing; I wouldn’t be able to talk to you like this without it. But it can also be a rabbit hole of information and things that aren’t important to you. In the worst case, it’s a garbage dump of terrible information constantly inundating you.
If you’re trying to be obsessed with the future you want to build, shutting down this external world that doesn’t exist in your reality – and doesn’t have to impact how you show up physically in your space, at work, with family, at home, at a restaurant – can transform your life. When you shut off that noise, you amplify what you actually want. You get to spend more time with your own thoughts, getting clear on where you want to go, what you see as an opportunity, and assessing what’s working for you versus what isn’t, because you don’t have this distracting noise.
When you’re self-obsessed, you don’t need external validation or direction. You already know what you’re building. You just need to protect your focus.
Principle Five: Self-Obsession Is Just Extreme Clarity
My dad is a doctor, and growing up, he’d tell me about medical school. The thought of going terrified me because he’d tell gory stories about cadavers and weird things doctors train on. But one thing he told me that I never forgot was when a medical resident said, ‘I want to be a left ear surgeon.’ My dad said that person always became a left ear surgeon. He was making a point: if you are clear about where you are going, you will get there.
The people who are clear they want to be a veterinarian become veterinarians. If you say you want a million-dollar business, you’ll create the conditions in your life to have one. When you’re clear on what you want in life, you can do what’s needed to get there. But if you never know what you want and are always distracted by outside influences – ‘maybe I’ll dabble in this,’ ‘maybe I’ll be interested in that’ – and all your interests are dispersed, you’ll never get results.
When you have clarity, you can be ruthlessly honest with yourself about what’s stopping you from achieving your goals. I find that people with lots of different interests are often people who just don’t want to be held accountable. If I’m hopping around to different things, it’s easy to say, ‘Oh, that’s why I don’t have results because I wasn’t really sure if I wanted to do that.’ Versus going all-in on one thing, taking it incredibly seriously, and saying, ‘This is who I’m going to become.’
When you have that ‘burn the boats’ moment, you don’t have a secondary backup plan. There’s no additional option. You have to become that thing. The more you publicize and tell the world this is who you’re going to be and these are your goals, you pull in people who will support you and naturally rid yourself of distractions. The challenge is, most people are distractions. They don’t know what they want to be; they don’t have clear goals. So, they often fall into this mushy middle.
Stop letting other people’s priorities scatter your focus. Get ruthlessly clear on what you need to do. Only you can decide what those priorities are. If you apply these five principles, you will stop apologizing for being focused on yourself and start winning in life.
-
The Russia-Ukraine war, which many thought was winding down with peace talks happening, seems to be expanding. Ukraine recently launched an attack on a Russian oil tanker in the Mediterranean Sea. This strike, happening far from the usual battlegrounds, marks a significant shift and raises questions about the war’s future.
Key Takeaways
- The war is expanding geographically, not just in terms of conflict zones.
- Attacks on assets outside Ukraine carry the risk of drawing in other countries.
- This specific attack is unlikely to have a major impact on Russia’s ability to supply fuel.
- Russia is expected to retaliate, likely within Ukraine’s borders.
- Peace talks have been ongoing but are complicated by both sides’ positions.
- Negotiated settlements for wars often take years, not months.
The Expanding Battlefield
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel L. Davis points out that the recent drone strike on a Russian oil tanker in the Mediterranean is a clear sign of the war expanding. While it hasn’t targeted new countries directly, it has broadened the geographical scope of the conflict. Davis has expressed concern that expanding the war beyond Ukraine’s borders could potentially involve other nations. However, he notes that so far, the targets have been Russian assets, not necessarily other countries’ direct involvement. Still, hitting ships flagged by other nations or located in their ports carries a risk of escalation.
Impact on the War Effort
Despite the dramatic nature of the attack, Davis believes it won’t significantly impact the war itself. Russia has a vast network of oil tankers, pipelines, and other methods to transport fuel. There are over 1,300 such ships, and disrupting one is unlikely to cripple their supply chain or revenue. He emphasizes that every action has a reaction, and Russia is expected to respond. While the exact nature of the response is unknown, Davis predicts it will likely occur within Ukraine’s borders, possibly in a place like Odessa, rather than escalating the conflict to new countries.
The Long Road to Peace Talks
The ongoing peace negotiations have been complex, with multiple parties involved – the US, Ukraine, Russia, and Europe. Davis explains that historically, ending wars through negotiation often takes years. This is especially true when neither side feels they are losing or in a position where they must settle. Ukraine, while on the defensive, doesn’t believe it has lost and hopes for continued fighting to potentially shift the dynamics or draw in more support. Russia, feeling it has the upper hand, sees no reason to compromise. This creates a stalemate where both sides are at opposite ends, and progress in talks is slow. The current situation is characterized by a lot of discussion but little movement towards a resolution.
-
📚 Related Articles
-
Recent events have seen dramatic shifts in the international landscape, particularly concerning the conflict in Ukraine. We’re witnessing significant developments, including calls for Russia’s capitulation and the EU’s controversial steps to legalize the seizure of Russian assets. These actions, coupled with EU-US negotiations, have led to demands that seem unlikely to be accepted by Russia.
Key Takeaways
- Trump’s Unexpected Stance: Donald Trump’s position on the Ukraine war has undergone a significant and surprising flip-flop, with his emissaries initially agreeing to terms that favored Ukraine’s demands.
- EU’s Legalization of Asset Seizure: The European Union is moving to legalize the seizure and locking of Russian state assets, a move that has significant legal and political implications.
- Belgian Political Landscape: Despite a general pro-Ukraine stance in Belgium, there’s a strong domestic political pushback against the confiscation of Russian assets, with multiple parties opposing the move.
- Potential for Russian Escalation: The current political climate and the perceived failure of diplomatic avenues suggest a higher likelihood of Russia escalating its actions.
Trump’s Shifting Position and Internal US Politics
What’s been observed in the last few days is a remarkable flip-flop from Donald Trump regarding the Ukraine conflict. His representatives attended a meeting in Berlin, where the seizure of Russian state assets to fund the war was a major topic. It appeared that an agreement was reached on terms that largely mirrored Ukraine’s long-standing demands, essentially aiming to revert the situation to pre-February 2022 conditions. This included addressing territorial issues and the de facto NATO presence in Ukraine, even suggesting security guarantees akin to Article 5.
Trump and his team initially presented this as a step closer to peace. However, something unusual seems to have occurred. There are indications of internal political struggles on Capitol Hill, possibly related to national security strategy or Trump’s approach to the war in Europe. This internal conflict may have forced Trump to alter his stance, potentially setting the stage for Russia to reject the proposed peace terms, thereby casting them as the party hindering peace.
This isn’t just a casual inconsistency for Trump; it suggests a deeper political battle unfolding in Washington that isn’t fully visible. The net result, from Russia’s perspective, is that President Putin has been placed in a difficult position. Hardliners within the Russian finance ministry, who argued that diplomatic options were exhausted, now appear vindicated, while those who favored a diplomatic approach may face repercussions.
The EU’s Controversial Move on Russian Assets
Meanwhile, in Europe, particularly in Belgium, there’s a significant political debate brewing over the EU’s plan to confiscate Russian state assets. Despite Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s strong stance on national sovereignty, he has consistently voted with the majority on sanctions, seemingly seeking economic concessions for his country rather than acting as a staunch ally of Russia.
However, Belgium is emerging as a focal point of resistance. Reports indicate that virtually every political party in Belgium, across the spectrum, supports the government’s opposition to the asset confiscation. A special session of the Belgian House of Representatives is planned, where the legislature’s stance will be made clear. Belgium, along with Italy, Malta, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, forms a bloc of seven countries opposing the confiscation. This makes it challenging for the EU leadership, like Ursula von der Leyen, to push through the plan without significant concessions, such as written guarantees from all member states to share the financial risk associated with using these frozen assets as collateral for loans to Ukraine.
Von der Leyen’s alternative is for EU member states to fund the aid directly. This would involve a more traditional budgetary process, requiring parliamentary approval in each country. Given the current economic climate and austerity measures across Europe, securing such funding could prove difficult and might lead to parliamentary revolts. If this plan fails, it could signal the end of the conflict by early 2026, potentially under conditions of Ukrainian bankruptcy.
The Escalation Ladder and Future Prospects
The EU’s decision on financing Ukraine, whether through asset seizure or direct funding, appears to deepen its commitment. This comes at a time when diplomatic paths seemed more plausible just weeks ago. The current trajectory suggests a continued, and possibly escalating, conflict.
There’s a growing concern that Russia, feeling cornered by the failure of its diplomatic bets and the ongoing Western support for Ukraine, may have no choice but to escalate. This could involve more aggressive military actions, potentially targeting key Ukrainian infrastructure or even considering actions against Western assets or interests. The attacks on Russian commercial vessels in the Black Sea, for instance, are fueling anger and could provoke a strong response.
Some analysts suggest that Russia could take less manpower-intensive actions, such as shooting down Western spy planes providing targeting information to Ukraine. This would send a clear message to countries like the UK, which are seen as leading the charge against Russia. While taking cities like Odesa is still on the table, these other measures could have an immediate impact on the situation.
The current situation is precarious, with incentives building for Russia to retaliate against Europe. However, it’s unlikely to lead to a full-scale World War in Europe, as European arsenals are depleted, and they lack the military capacity to engage Russia directly. The focus remains on how Russia will respond to the perceived provocations and the potential collapse of Ukraine, and whether this will lead to a more decisive military campaign.
-
The world is witnessing a concerning breakdown in the established norms of international maritime law, leading to increased tensions and the potential for conflict. This shift is marked by a decline in the predictability and safety of sea lanes, impacting global trade and security.
Key Takeaways
- The decline of a hegemonic power often leads to the unraveling of open international economic systems and can spark wars.
- Freedom of navigation, a cornerstone of global trade, is under threat due to various conflicts and assertive actions by states.
- The United States, while historically a proponent of freedom of navigation, has also been accused of misapplying the concept and violating international law.
- Several nations, including China and Russia, have growing maritime interests and strategies that are reshaping global sea control.
- The erosion of international law and established post-World War II norms is creating a more unpredictable and potentially dangerous maritime environment.
The Shifting Tides of Power
It’s becoming increasingly clear that as a dominant power, like the United States, starts to lose its grip, the open international economic system can begin to fall apart. This isn’t just about trade; it can even lead to wars. When a country is on top, it usually wants to keep the trading system open and peaceful because that benefits them. But when that country starts to decline, it might try to use its former power to stop rivals from rising, even using military force to hold onto what it’s losing.
One area where we can really see this happening is with freedom of navigation. Think about the open sea lanes that ships use for trade. These have been super important for decades, keeping things peaceful and open. But now, it seems like these routes are closing down. We’re seeing conflicts in the Caribbean, blockades around Venezuela, attacks on ships in the Black Sea, and problems popping up in the Arctic and East Asia. There are plenty of examples to show that something is changing.
A Crisis in Maritime Law
Ambassador Chas Freeman points out that we’re seeing a strange mix of things happening. On one hand, the United States seems to be pulling back from its global commitments, but at the same time, it’s starting to assert powers it never used before, especially concerning the law of the sea. On the other hand, there’s also a domestic political situation that’s quite unstable. When powerful groups feel they’re losing their standing, they sometimes turn to strong leaders who blame an enemy for their problems. This is happening in the U.S. right now.
This combination of international and domestic contraction is causing problems. The phrase "freedom of navigation" has been used in ways that don’t quite fit. For instance, the U.S. Navy has conducted operations in the South China Sea, claiming it’s about freedom of navigation. But China, which has the most ships passing through the South China Sea, also has a huge stake in keeping those routes open. The real issue there is more technical, involving claims over islands and waters. China’s claims, drawn on lines like the nine-dash line, are seen by some as improper under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Ironically, the U.S. hasn’t ratified this convention but often relies on its principles.
Violations and Escalation
The situation gets even more complicated when we look at actions in other areas. The law of the sea is being violated in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific. Sinking a boat with civilians or military personnel is considered an act of war, unlike intercepting a vessel for inspection. Yet, there have been instances where this has happened, and even survivors have been targeted. These actions are not only acts of war but also acts of piracy.
Seizing oil tankers on questionable grounds, like alleged transport of oil to groups like Hezbollah, also falls into this category. The breakdown of the law of the sea is evident, with little respect for international agreements. Even actions like the Houthi blockade in the Red Sea, which they claimed was in line with the genocide convention, highlight the complex and often conflicting interpretations of international law.
Competing Maritime Strategies
We’re entering a world where the rule of law and a consensus-based international order are disappearing. It feels like we’re going back to an era of piracy and unchecked actions. The United States, China, and Russia all have different strategies for maritime control. The U.S. is trying to maintain its past dominance, which is no longer possible. China, historically not a major naval power, is now globally active and seeking to establish a defensive perimeter. Russia is focused on preventing the Black Sea from becoming a "NATO lake" and has significant interests in the Arctic and Baltic.
The Role of Major Powers
- United States: Trying to hold onto global maritime control, which is becoming increasingly difficult. Historically a proponent of freedom of navigation, but actions have sometimes contradicted this principle.
- China: Expanding its naval capacity and seeking a defensive perimeter in its near seas, with growing interests in the Arctic.
- Russia: Focused on securing its access to warm-water ports, particularly in the Black Sea, and concerned about NATO’s presence in the Arctic and Baltic.
The Future of Sea Lanes
The breakdown of international law is happening across the board. From the South China Sea to the Arctic, and the Black Sea to the Baltic, there’s a growing disregard for established norms. This is particularly concerning because it involves major nuclear powers. The lack of leadership in establishing new rules or enforcing existing ones is a significant problem. While new transport corridors are emerging, like those through the Arctic, there’s no clear initiative to regulate them.
The United States is no longer leading the charge for international law, and China, while economically powerful, seems hesitant to take on a leadership role in global security and rule-making. Europe is divided, and other nations show little inclination to step up. This leaves a vacuum where might often makes right, echoing historical patterns where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. The golden rule, "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you," seems to have been forgotten, leading us into a more dangerous and unpredictable maritime future.
-
Sometimes, a relationship is over long before anyone says it out loud. For many women, the end isn’t marked by shouting matches or packed suitcases. Instead, their bodies start to communicate the message first. Desire can fade, sleep might become difficult, and a noticeable weight gain can occur. This isn’t about ‘letting oneself go’; it’s often a form of self-protection.
Key Takeaways
- Women may express the end of a relationship through physical changes rather than direct confrontation.
- Weight gain can serve as a protective barrier, a silent signal of distress.
- The body can become a boundary when speaking the truth feels too difficult.
- Direct communication is a powerful and sufficient tool for ending a relationship.
When Words Aren’t Spoken
It’s a common scenario: a woman feels a relationship is no longer working, but she doesn’t pack her bags or raise her voice. The message is sent in other ways. Her body starts to do the talking. This can manifest as a loss of desire, trouble sleeping, and sometimes, a deliberate increase in weight. People might notice and comment, saying she’s ‘let herself go.’ But often, this isn’t the case. It’s more likely a protective measure.
The Body as Armor
That extra weight, sometimes 20, 40, or even 60 pounds, can be a form of armor. It’s a physical boundary built when speaking the truth feels too hard. For many women, gaining weight feels safer, less terrifying than looking their partner in the eye and saying, "This relationship is finished for me." The body becomes the boundary, the exit sign, long before the voice finds the courage to speak up and express these difficult feelings.
Finding Your Voice
It’s important for women to know that they don’t need to hide behind extra pounds to leave a relationship. Your words are enough. You are enough. Direct communication, while challenging, is a powerful way to signal the end and move forward. Trusting your voice is a sign of strength, and it’s often the clearest path to resolution.
-
Economics · Austrian School · Dollar & Gold
Peter Schiff predicted the 2008 financial crisis with unusual precision and unusual public visibility — appearing on television in 2006 and 2007 warning that the housing market was a bubble built on unsustainable debt that would bring down the financial system. He was mocked. He was right. Since then, he has been predicting the collapse of the US dollar and a much larger crisis driven by US government debt and the Federal Reserve’s money creation. He has been consistently early — or consistently wrong on timing, depending on how you assess it. What is not in question is that his Austrian school framework provides a coherent and internally consistent critique of the monetary system that is worth understanding, regardless of whether you accept his conclusions.
Key Takeaways- → Schiff’s core thesis: the US dollar is in terminal decline — sustained by the world’s willingness to hold dollar-denominated assets, which he argues will end when inflation makes the cost of holding dollars intolerable
- → The Austrian school framework: money printing (quantitative easing) is not free stimulus — it is a hidden tax on savers and a distortion of price signals that leads to malinvestment and eventual crisis
- → Gold as money: Schiff argues gold is not an “investment” but money — the only store of value not subject to government debasement, whose 5,000-year track record is unmatched by any fiat currency
- → The 2008 track record: Schiff’s accurate prediction of 2008 earned him credibility; his subsequent dollar collapse predictions have been repeatedly wrong on timing — gold peaked in 2011 and spent a decade going sideways
- → What the Austrian school gets right: the insight that artificially low interest rates create distortions and misallocate capital is empirically supported — the question is the magnitude and timing of the correction
2006Year Schiff publicly predicted the 2008 housing crash$36trUS national debt underpinning his dollar collapse thesis$3,000+Gold price per oz in early 2026 — Schiff’s long-held targetThe Austrian School Framework
Schiff’s analysis is rooted in the Austrian school of economics — the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek — which views government intervention in monetary affairs as inherently distorting. The core argument is that interest rates, when set by market forces, coordinate the allocation of capital across time: high rates signal that current consumption is expensive and future production should be prioritised; low rates signal the opposite. When the Federal Reserve artificially suppresses interest rates below their natural level, it creates a false signal: businesses and consumers borrow and invest as if capital were abundant when it is not. The result is “malinvestment” — projects that appear profitable at artificially low rates but are not viable at normal rates. When rates inevitably normalise, these projects fail, triggering recession.
Applied to the post-2008 period, Schiff argues that near-zero interest rates for over a decade created the largest malinvestment boom in history — in real estate, financial assets, zombie companies sustained by cheap credit, and government debt that could not have been accumulated at normal borrowing costs. The rate increases of 2022–2024 are, in his framework, the beginning of the correction. But central banks, he argues, will ultimately retreat from normalisation because the economic pain is too great — and the retreat will reignite inflation and accelerate the dollar’s decline.
“The Fed can’t raise rates enough to actually fight inflation without blowing up the bond market, the stock market, the real estate market, and the banking system. So they won’t. And that means the inflation stays — and gets worse.”
The Dollar Collapse Thesis and Its Problems
Schiff has been predicting dollar collapse since the early 2000s. The dollar has not collapsed. It is, by most measures, stronger today in trade-weighted terms than it was when Schiff began his warnings. This does not mean his structural concerns are wrong — the US current account deficit, the fiscal deficit, and the debt-to-GDP trajectory are all moving in the direction his framework predicts would eventually cause a crisis. But “eventually” is doing a lot of work. The dollar’s reserve currency status is supported by network effects, the depth of US capital markets, and the absence of a credible alternative that are far more durable than Schiff’s model suggests. De-dollarisation is real but slow. See: De-Dollarisation: Is the Dollar Losing Reserve Status? and The US National Debt.
The Gold Case
Schiff’s most consistent investment recommendation is gold — not as a speculative asset but as money that cannot be debased. His argument: every fiat currency in history has eventually been inflated away; gold has maintained purchasing power over 5,000 years; in a world of unlimited money creation, gold is the only asset whose supply cannot be expanded by government decree. Gold has performed well in recent years — crossing $3,000 per ounce in early 2026 — vindicating Schiff’s long-held price target. Whether this reflects the dollar decline he predicts or simply the global uncertainty premium that gold attracts in times of geopolitical stress is a question investors must assess for themselves.
Portfolio ImplicationsSchiff’s framework suggests allocation to gold, silver, and international equities (particularly in economies with sounder fiscal positions than the US) as protection against dollar debasement. For European investors, some of this protection is automatic — euro-denominated portfolios are not exposed to dollar risk in the same way. The relevant question is whether to add explicit commodity exposure. Our Index Funds guide covers the accessible options for adding diversification.
Bottom LinePeter Schiff correctly predicted 2008. His subsequent dollar collapse predictions have been wrong on timing for 15 years. These two facts need to be held together: the structural analysis has merit, and the timing predictions have been consistently too early. The Austrian school framework he applies — artificial interest rates create malinvestment, money printing creates inflation, fiat currencies eventually fail — is not fringe economics. It is a coherent and historically grounded critique of the modern monetary system. The question is not whether these dynamics are real, but when and how they resolve. Schiff believes the answer is soon and badly. The evidence so far suggests the timeline is longer than he predicts — but the direction of travel he identifies is increasingly accepted even by mainstream economists.