Faith abubey net worth

Hello dear divididend redditors! I randomly got the urge to post about my current stock portfolio after reading many (many, many many... yes, many) posts about early retirement, dividends in general.
My brother introduced me into stocks and dividends when I was 18 years old (2018), I still have a piece of paper where I wrote down my "net worth", which at that time was: 26,25€.
I then bought one amazon share while I was still becoming a full time cutting machine operator, that was my only investment until 2020.
2020 was the year I really got started in investing, I could invest an average of 500-1000€ per month since completing my training to a full time cutting machine operator.
Long story-short, My portfolio has now reached 30.000€ yesterday, I also have 5500€ as "play money" in Crypto since I'm still young and It wouldn't hurt losing that money. (I'm 23 years old right now and from germany so pardon my not so well spoken english)
I will still live for another year at my parents house, and I earn approximately 3000€ after tax each month now while working shifts, so I now will try and aggressively invest about 1500-1800€ each month into my stock portfolio, in hopes that it will pay off in a few years.
Last year 2022 I accumulated 685€ in dividends.
For this year I now have 326€ at the current date 30.05.2023. I hope to surpass the 685€ which I think I will!
I noticed I keep reading and obsessing with the thought of investing, retiring early and so on.. I'm tempted to just sell and buy myself a nice car for example, but I know it just doesn't make sense to me to flex with it at an gas station like many others do at my age, I'm reading rich dad poor dad at the moment and a car is just a luxury thing to have, I drive a BMW E36 at the moment which is fine and does its job.
I would just like to see some stories from you guys and maybe even success stories because I would like to keep being motivated because I think it will pay off in 5-10 years and so on..
I just overthink about this investing stuff in general so maybe I could gather some tips from experienced people to keep being motivated in investing and educating myself in finances!
Would really appreciate getting tips from you guys, I'll gladly ask questions too if someone would be interested!

I think you try and emulate building an offense like the warriors have done over the past decade. Sharpe is an absolute beast and I think could be a similar player to peak klay. Elite defender and shot maker. Can fit into a motion offense. If Dame was on the warriors instead of curry I fully believe they probably still win a few titles. He can be the 1A guy for the next 2 years which is the window if they want to win now. Next hope draymond opts out of his player option and sign the man. Then look to sign and trade grant + Simon’s and the 3rd overall for PG or Kawaii (stock is so low because he has no legs) or Mikal. Trade the 23 and nurk for a guy like Mitch Rob or Precious A or go big for walker Kessler and see if another future 1st plus the 23 and nurk is enough. Try and draft lively/edey with a 2nd as a Jokic/Embid stopper. Resign thybull, and fill out the team with 3 and d types and a guy like Dennis smith jr who can be their Livingston. If they want to win now I think they can but they need to go all in and bet if they can get over the hump now. Also I would see if they can have a conversation with kenny Atkinson and have him be the coach of the future. Looking back at the past 20 years teams in the nba finals, the only teams with their 1A being a PG have been the warriors and Nets with debatably the spurs in 2014 (Tony Parker), the Pistons in 04 (Billips) or the Celtics in 08 (Rondo?) so getting a coach who has been an X and O’s guy on a team that has been successful with their 1A as a PG could be a game changer as well. There are also more guys in this draft compared to past drafts from what I’ve been seeing that could be Austin reeves type 2nd rounders who we might be able to talk with that we could sign as udfa with a specific role in mind. Guys like landers nolley, Kobe brown, jalen bridges, Jordan Walsh, Jaquez jr, sanogo, murrell, and Andre Jackson are all guys I think will carve out roles in this league and could be day one contributors in the right situation. Especially Jordan Walsh and Andre Jackson. Even if getting an elite SF isn’t on the table now. Draft Miller + resign grant and let the plan ride. I think it’s only a matter of time until the clips blow things up and it may end being more of a deadline move that we could still make happen. I think a core of Lillard Sharpe Draymond and solid pieces could make the playoffs in the west with the right coach but I am okay with mortgaging the future on kawhi because all we need is one healthy playoff run and it’ll be all worth it and he’s a guy even with all the injuries that can be the the difference maker.
Dream team
Lillard, Sharpe, Kawhi, draymond, Mitch Rob/Kessler
Dennis smith Jr, thybull, Cam Reddish, otto porter types at the 3 and 4 and Edey/Lively
With 2 of the guys like a Jordan Walsh 2nd as your 12th and 13th men looking to step into the rotation.
I think Walsh is a very similar player to Jordan Hawkins who has shot up draft boards and could be the steal of this draft.
This draft is crazy deep and think offers some guys you could plug in next year and see better results then the bargain bin area of FA that we would be operating in with the new cba and adding a kawhi and draymond plus Lillard max.
I also think with the right system and coaching. We wouldn’t need to ride kawhi at all in the regular season and he can be that sort of KD plug and play type come playoffs time that won’t need a ton of time to gel.

I am specifically referring to National Bolshevism as the term was originally coined, rather than any group of people who may have labelled themselves "National Boshelviks" since. The term predates even the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922, let alone any other 20th century regime. The term was originally used by Karl Radek to describe two member he was expelling as "National Boshelviks". What these people wanted to do was align the revolutionary movement in Germany with that in Russia in mutual opposition to both the treaty of Versailles and the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
I am specifically defending the prospect of this strategy in particular rather than specifically any person who might have been or could have been advocating for it and any ideas they might have had otherwise, not because it is national, or even bolshevik, but rather because I think it conforms with the idea in the Communist Manifesto of the role of Communists in relation to Proletarians where the Communists do not form separate political programs of their own and instead are supposed to align various proletarians movements together across nationality with respect to the current stage than any of those movements may find themselves in.

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

Therefore the irony of this position I am defending is that it was the one advocated for by people labelled National, which would clearly seem to be contrary to being independent of nationality, and Bolshevik who would seem to be sectarians seeking to mold to proletarian movement. The other irony is that for it to have been possible it would have required overcoming proletarian movements in different nationalities operating independent of one another, in addition to overcoming the sectarianism emerging between all the differing "Communist" movements. In other words this is another call in an endless stream of "stop infighting!" coupled with "everyone except for me is wrong" which just contributes to the infighting by creating a new sectarian divergence but there is very little that can be done about that. Mostly this is just an excuse to discuss a particular moment I find interesting and inner contrarian in me just wants to make the seemingly most insane position seem the most reasonable as a challenge.
Lenin was not in favour of this so it was a bit of a non-starter. In "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder he criticizes people who refuse to recognize the treaties, but in addition to the tendencies of so-called National Bolsheviks, he also criticized the Left-Communists that Karl Radek and the other German Revolutionaries were often members. Here we can start to see a problem emerging as you clearly have two different revolutionary movements in two different countries who are having difficulty working with each other (with the problem of the treaties between these countries not even being the main issue they were squabbling over). Indeed while not around long enough to have become officially a Left-Communist herself, Luxembourg is associated with them as her writings are cited as a major influence on the tendency, and she is notable for criticizing Lenin's Bolshevism.
There was a lot of confusion in this period and numerous tendencies diverging from one another, the reason being is that in the wake of the Russian Revolution and the end of the First World War there was a period of revolutionary activity across the entire world. While Russia and Germany are often the most focused upon due to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany being our core 20th century players and many seeing these revolutions as the origin points of these things with a compare and contrast analysis being done to understand while one failed and the other succeeded, in the light of understanding the world revolution as a wave, looking at just these two revolutions becomes parochial, as there was clearly one singular revolution going on across the world in the same way as during the Revolutions of 1848 where the Communist Manifesto was published.
Indeed Marx and Engels viewed that as a singular revolution and would have viewed the similar wave of revolutions that peaked in 1919 but spanned from 1917-1923 as a singular revolution. While differing in severity there was revolutionary activity in numerous countries ranging from the Two Red Years in Italy to the much less impressive sounding Red Week) in the Netherlands. Even as far away as Canada, Australia, and South Africa there were labour revolts in this period. The case of Canada is a bit emblematic of the obscurity of the scale of these events, as while the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 is well known, much like with only Russia and Germany beings discussed, the strike wave nature of the events in Canada just as in the world tends to fall out of discussion, as for instance this wave actually started with a general strike in Vancouver that was crushed by the military.
In the Preface to the 1882 Russian Edition of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels even suggested in the wake of the assassination of the Tsar Liberator that the impending Russian (bourgeois) Revolution would serve as a signal for the Western proletariat to have their Revolution, and that the Russian Revolution could end up being communist alongside the West.

And now Russia! During the Revolution of 1848-9, not only the European princes, but the European bourgeois as well, found their only salvation from the proletariat just beginning to awaken in Russian intervention. The Tsar was proclaimed the chief of European reaction. Today, he is a prisoner of war of the revolution in Gatchina, and Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe.
The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

Now 1882 didn't turn into a revolution in Russia and there were several false starts like in 1905, but eventually it did finally happen. However seemingly with Lenin's New Economic Policy, both scenarios discussed ended up needing to happen. The Russian Revolution was both Communist and they felt it impossible to transition straight into Communism and thus had to allow some kind of bourgeois property relation to develop, and then later on had to eliminate this thing they created themselves in a rather unfortunate series of events. Additionally while the Russian Revolution did prove to be a signal for the Western proletariat to have their revolution, the proletariat revolution failed. In the spirit of this discussion I'm going to be argue that these were not separate incidents but rather the failure of the western proletariat's revolution is why Lenin implemented the NEP in 1922, in part because of internal rebellions calling for these things and because the international revolution seemingly failed resulting in a loss of hope that the western proletariat would in some way save them, which had to result in some kind of proletarian vanguard party lead bourgeois state emerging on the fly. Stalin would later have to undo this both these consequences in the events he is most criticized for, as in addition to reversing the NEP with collectivization, he undid the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk when as Molotov said "One kick from the German army and another from the Soviet Army put an end to this ugly product of Versailles" in regards to Poland. Polish independence being quite the unfortunate sacrifice here considering how supportive of it Engels was in the 1892 Polish Preface the the Communist Manifesto.

But the rapid development of Polish industry, outstripping that of Russia, is in its turn a new proof of the inexhaustible vitality of the Polish people and a new guarantee of its impending national restoration. And the restoration of an independent and strong Poland is a matter which concerns not only the Poles but all of us. A sincere international collaboration of the European nations is possible only if each of these nations is fully autonomous in its own house. The Revolution of 1848, which under the banner of the proletariat, after all, merely let the proletarian fighters do the work of the bourgeoisie, also secured the independence of Italy, Germany and Hungary through its testamentary executors, Louis Bonaparte and Bismarck; but Poland, which since 1792 had done more for the Revolution than all these three together, was left to its own resources when it succumbed in 1863 to a tenfold greater Russian force. The nobility could neither maintain nor regain Polish independence; today, to the bourgeoisie, this independence is, to say the last, immaterial. Nevertheless, it is a necessity for the harmonious collaboration of the European nations. It can be gained only by the young Polish proletariat, and in its hands it is secure. For the workers of all the rest of Europe need the independence of Poland just as much as the Polish workers themselves.

(The call for "full autonomy in a nations own house" is probably worth explaining. Nations that should be autonomous are nations which can be autonomous all on their own without international meddling. Engels was notoriously against all the south slavs for their pan-slavism because their independence was necessitated by interference from Imperial Russia, in part because he was still mad about the revolutions of 1848 not working out. He was even still mad at them 34 years later when he reaffirmed Polish independence alongside Irish independence as the most crucial national struggles to support. The reason being that Poland rejected pan-Slavism and was instead independently nationalist. That Poland could stand alone (and more importantly that Polish agitation threatened three reactionary imperial monarchies in Germany, Austria, and Russia at the same time. Ireland being important to screw around with the bourgeois British Empire as Marx and Engels increasingly saw the absentee revenues the British ruling class generated for themselves in Ireland as being the key to their parliamentary political dominance in England against both lower class and anti-imperialist challenges which were often the same thing) is why Polish independence was so supported. Standing alone is important because autonomous nations can switch between the rule of various classes without the risk of foreign interference on the part of imperialist reactionaries putting things back the way they were to protect their sphere of influence. The issue is that Polish independence ended up being a thorn in the side of the revolution when Polish independence was granted through Wilsonian liberal internationalism and during the Russian Civil War the Red Army tried and failed to retaliate against Poland when they joined forces with the Entente Liberal Imperialists in the Soviet-Poland War.
For NATO fans the opposition to NATO comes from this concept of being against spheres of influence, with a preference for complete independence. The Soviets or even Russia joining NATO however transform the institution from an American sphere of influence into just some vague "nobody invade anybody else okay guys thanks" treaty which is what it is sold as. So long as Russia is not included in NATO it fails to fulfill its stated purpose, and it must be opposed because it does not protect the independence of the nations within it, rather it makes them subservient to the United States, and the counter-balance of Russia inside the block is sufficient that the nations within it could seamlessly transfer between spheres of influence, or more importantly, not be in anyone's sphere of influence by successfully playing the US and Russia off each other, which puts each nation in a position to pursue development with little risk of the alliance being used to punish them. In fact if say Luxembourg decided to go rogue it could even use the NATO treaty to argue that anyone infringing upon them should be subjected to retaliation by all the other members, and now they have a socialist Luxembourg in the middle of Europe and they can't do anything about it because the treaty guarantees their independence with multiple dozen moving parts so long as Luxembourg doesn't militarily invade anybody. However if the organization is nothing more that an American political block with US bases every where, clearly the US would be able to pressure people into recognizing the socialist Luxembourg as illegitimate in some way and argue it can be invaded without requiring everyone come to its defense. So NATO good if Russia included and US bases removed, an in NATO Russia still isn't a threat to even Estonia if dozens of European countries are required to defend it, and that isn't even considering a late arrival of the US and Canada when they finally cross the Atlantic. The problem with NATO is that it is clearly an unofficial loosely held US empire, it stops being a problem when it is no longer this)
This whole confused mess could have been avoided had the world revolution not failed. This circles back to the Russian and German revolutions and how they were not united. Therefore the position of those labelled Nazbol is attractive merely for the sake that it would have united these two disparate revolutions. The success of either was reliant on the success of the other. The prior Bolshevik position of Peace Without Annexations or Indemnities would permanently lock in the Russian and German revolutions together in a mutual opposition to the bourgeois treaties, a pact of blood to oppose the pacts signed in ink.
Additionally opposition to the indemnity aspect of the treaty of Versailles would have been in fidelity to the revolutionary history of the Paris Commune which inspired the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1871, which was prompted in part by opposition to the burden of the reparation payments imposed on France by Bismark in response to Napolean III's failed invasion being placed on the people of France by the bourgeois government that signed that treaty. On a global scale while the opportunity for revolution by the proletariat refusing to enter World War One was squandered by the Social Democrats granting their permission, the proletariat could instead refuse to exit World War One by not granting their permission for acceptance of the bourgeois treaties just as the Paris Commune refused to accept Bismark's treaty.
Indeed opposition to the bourgeois Treaty of Trianon served as the basis for cooperation between the Nationalists and the Communists in Hungary, who unlike the Luxembourgists in Germany, were internationally aligned with the Boshelviks in Russia with the establishment of the Hungarian Soviet Republic. The alliance however broke down with the establishment of the Slovak Soviet Republic as the Hungarian nationalists questioned why they were participating in the Hungarian Red Army if they were just going to be liberating other countries, this ended up not even being that relevant of a dispute seeing as Slovakia was never fully captured and the Czechoslovak army ended up recapturing it in a month and so the issue only lasted from June 1919 to July 1919. However it exposed the core obvious problem with the alliance between nationalists and communists, as the full Petrograd formula was "peace without annexations or indemnities, on the basis of self-determination of the peoples" so the nationalists opposed to treaties were not going to like it when the second part got implemented later.
Lenin and Stalin ran into a similar issue when Stalin opposed Georgian self-determination in 1922 and wanted them to instead join Russia, with the comical situation of Stalin calling the Georgian Mensheviks "nationalist-socialists" and the Russian Lenin accusing the Georgian Stalin of being a Russian nationalist-socialist in response. We can clearly see that there are vastly differing views on the questions of nationality all over the place and there was no one line being taken, with Hungary and Germany taking vastly different views in regards to the treaties and cooperation with nationalists, to their own unique sets of problems later on with them.
The vastly different ways everyone was handling these issues is why I argue that the best principle would have been to have no principles at all. The only communist principle in regards to nationality is international cooperation. Indeed while you had Communist revolutions in German, Hungary, and Russia, the common thread uniting them of opposition to the bourgeois treaties would have also united them with the liberal Kemalist revolution in Turkey, thus completing the alignment of all revolutionaries in the central powers and Imperial Russia against the rest of the entente attempting to impose the bourgeois treaties, in effect adding Russia to the central powers after the imperialist war had turned into a civil war in all four imperial monarchies. That Turkey was in a vastly different stage of revolution than the other three would be irrelevant as these revolutions would still be mutually supporting of each other, and the Communists could rest assured safely knowing that while differing countries might be in different stages of revolution, they had the advantage over all others in knowing the ultimate end result of all their revolutions even if the people operating in them might not know it themselves.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

As such the notion that one needs to be politically Communist to participate in the revolution is false. So long as a state of revolution remained the stages of the revolution could continue moving forward. If Turkey was not materially ready for it, that need not matter so long as the Kemalists were willing to join in an anti-imperialist block in the mean time, which they were willing to do until the Soviets later started looking at the straights with desire which eventually pushed Turkey into the arms of NATO where it remains to this day. However at the time the Soviets and Turkey were quite friendly despite their obvious ideological differences merely based on this mutual geopolitical interest in so-called anti-imperialism. This anti-imperialism was selective however, with the "Mountain Turks" and "Mountain Russians" being sacrificed for it, but the benefits of not having principles means you don't exactly have to care about that. Ataturk can make poutine out of the Kurds all he wants if he remains staunchly anti-imperialist on an international level. This gross cynical realism while obviously questionable is still consistent with Revolutionary History as all prior revolutions do not stand up to moral scrutiny when they are viewed in this way. In fact at the twilight of the 1848 revolutions Engels himself called for the Hungarians to wipeout the "counter-revolutionary" Slavs, while this is obviously not something we should want to have happened, and we definitely should not ever do this if we ever find ourselves in a position to make those decisions, it is important to understand the reasoning behind why he was saying those things, that it is the continuance of the revolution itself is both the most important thing, and something that is largely out of anyone's control in the Hegelian sense of Historicism.

The Magyar cause is not in such a bad way as mercenary black-and-yellow [colours of the Austrian flag] enthusiasm would have us believe. The Magyars are not yet defeated. But if they fall, they will fall gloriously, as the last heroes of the 1848 revolution, and only for a short time. Then for a time the Slav counter-revolution will sweep down on the Austrian monarchy with all its barbarity, and the camarilla will see what sort of allies it has. But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.

A key fact you will observe is that they are often quite over eager in announcing the impending revolution. For instance The Magyar Struggle was published in January of 1849 in Marx's Newspaper, and Louis Napoleon was elected President of France in December of 1848. It seems as if they might have thought that this would have been more significant than it actually turned out to be. This kind of made sense though because Louis Napoleon's main opponent in the election was Louis-Eugene Cavagnac who lead the army to suppress a worker's uprising in Paris back in the "June Days" of 1848. Additionally the Hungarians did not do this, instead they adopted cultural assimilation policies called Magyarization, and late in the revolution into 1849 while the Russian and Austria Imperial armies were barring down on them they adopted minority right protections to try to win them back. However they were ultimately unsuccessful in repelling the Russian invasion regardless of any attempts at outreach.
What I find notable about this is that Engels essentially predicted the sides of the "next world war" (albeit there was a world war in between) that would wipeout entire peoples, but somehow ended up reversing the reactionary and revolutionary sides, as an Austrian German and the Hungarians did engage in a war against the Slavs, but because somehow the "poles of revolution" did somehow invert and head outwards from Russia like Engels said the Slavs supposedly wanted, that war was against the revolution instead of for it.

There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution.
Such, in Scotland, are the Gaels, the supporters of the Stuarts from 1640 to 1745.
Such, in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from 1792 to 1800.
Such, in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos.
Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the residual fragment of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development. That this residual fragment, which is likewise extremely confused, sees its salvation only in a reversal of the whole European movement, which in its view ought to go not from west to east, but from east to west, and that for it the instrument of liberation and the bond of unity is the Russian knout — that is the most natural thing in the world.

However a lot can apparently change in almost 100 years. Russia was once seen as the bastion of reaction celebrated by the reactionaries everywhere for having invaded Hungary to put down the 1848-9 revolution, but then became the center of revolution, taking that spot from France which didn't really participate in the Revolutions despite the 1917 mutinies defused in June by Philip Petain by reassuring the soldiers by calling off the offensives that were intended to try to reassure the Provision Russian Government from the February Revolution to stay in the war and who launched the "Kerensky Offensive" in July which prompted the unsuccessful "July Days" Bolshevik uprising before the later successful October Revolution.
The absence of French participation beyond this is remarkable given how much they played a role in other revolutions and also remarkable how it was later Vichy leader Petain himself who basically defused the situation by giving the soldiers what they wanted and ending the suicidal offensives. The difference between Petain and Kerensky here and that the Russian revolution had not yet gone proletariat at this point while France was dealing with its own situation coming up from the soldiers and that the Russian version of this happened only a month afterwards should probably be focused on more here, in addition to how the differing approaches countries took on simultaneous and similar events from 1917-1923 should be analyzed like how I am suggesting (Comprehensive Revolutionary History of World War One when? Honestly I might write it at this point, issue is wikipedia as sources is probably not the greatest, and wikipedia article bouncing is how I'm formulating these connections as it requires an extremely shallow understanding of a lot of things that people with deep understandings of those things would all reject because I'm ignoring intricacies, despite ignoring intricacies being the entire point as intricacies are caused by random eddies and chaotic currents, and so must be ignored if you want to get a sense of the overall direction things are going, although admittedly I feel myself getting a bit schizo when I assert random concepts whole cloth that nobody has ever used by anyone besides me as you will see with the term "global political magnetic field collapse")
Since the Russian Revolution the apparent "pole of reaction" where global reactionaries collect as their refuge that Russia represented seemingly shifted to the United States for the Cold War after the pole reversal and global political magnetic field collapse manifesting in the out of place auroral borealis of the inter-war period and world war 2. It would be reasonable to assume that it would be just as possible for the United States to become a new center of revolution in the way Russia took that position from France despite Russia being the most reactionary power of anyone before that happened.

Real Estate for rental or House
Hi fellows,
Just looking for an advice - 31M, with 1 kid (6 months), wife not working, living in Poland, working in tech remotely, running a small company and contracting myself.
Current financial situation: Income: - my contract 5.2k€ net - company 4.4k€ net / half for partner = 2.2k€ (right now not taking it out to try to grow the company) - starting an extra temp contract for around 8k€ net for at least 6 months in July, then possibly will need 2 months rest to avoid burnout.
Total expenses: Including mortgage and living around 2.5k€
Debt: - Mortgage for flat we live in 47k€ left at fixed 2.7% for 3 more years, current worth around 107k€
Savings: - Gold 8oz - around 15k€ (financial bag) - silver 100oz - 2.5k€ - brokerage account 25.5k€ - cash 39k€ - cash 6k€ (financial bag) - crypto 5k€
If we want to build a house it would be around 200-225k€ putting us way behind with everything. Want to go FIRE route and if everything goes well finish working at 40.
Currently I thought about buying some rental property (flats in older buildings) for around 77-80k€ which would cash flow around 350€ net monthly after all expenses and with pretty strict calculations.
But in my mind all the time I have that having a garden and house would be amazing for our family and we want that both for 100%. Just not sure when.
For me right now most intuitive is to get some more money and possibly focus more on the rental units as I find it the safest space. The current ROI is bit shit though. But it would be just to protect us a bit if something happens to me.
Just struggling on where to go next. All suggestions and different point of views would be a blessing as I’ve been thinking about it for 2 months and can’t decide.
Thank you!

Marvel Comics! Here’s downloading or watching Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse streaming the full movie online for free on 123movies & Reddit, including where to watch the anticipated Pixar’s Movie at home. Is Lightyear 2023 available to stream? Is watching Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse 2023 on Disney Plus, HBO Max, Netflix, or Amazon Prime? Yes, we have found a faithful streaming option/service.
Watch Now: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Free Hd
Watch Now: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Free Hd
Over 25 years ago, a little boy named Andy received a Buzz Lightyear action figure in the 1995 Pixar film Toy Story. Now, all these years later, audiences will finally see the movie that inspired that action figure in the Toy Story spin-off movie, Lightyear, which is soaring into theatres this weekend.
​
This is not the Buzz Lightyear you know and love—the one who is best friends with Woody and voiced by Tim Allen. This is the original Buzz Lightyear, a bonafide space ranger voiced by Chris Evans, who is stranded on a hostile planet that is 4.2 million lightyears from Earth, alongside his commander and crew. The Lightyear cast also includes the voices of Keke Palmer, Peter Sohn, James Brolin, Taika Waititi, Dale Soules, Uzo Aduba, and Isiah Whitlock Jr.
​
Photos Show How Tough Life in Medieval Castles Was
Watch Now: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Free Online
With this new Toy Story adventure coming to theatres, you may feel the urge to revisit the classics. The decider is here to help with that. Read on to find out what Toy Story movies to watch before Lightyear and how to stream the Toy Story.
​
The Most Useless Cars to Ever Be Produced
Can I Stream Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse?
You can’t stream Lightyear yet — but you’ll be able to soon. As a Disney movie, you can expect Lightyear to drop on their streaming service, Disney Plus, in the coming weeks, but the exact date of when that might happen hasn’t been announced yet.
​
Generally, with their cinematic releases, Disney and Pixar tend to follow either a 30-day release window or a 45-day release window. We don’t know which one they’re going with yet for Lightyear, but this means that given the movie’s global release date is June 17, we can expect Lightyear to be on Disney Plus sometime between July 21 and August 3, 2022.
​
The Most Useless Cars to Ever Be Produced
Where To Watch Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Online
With a new Lightyear coming out very soon, you may want to rewatch all the movies. Or, if you haven’t given the animated adventure films a shot, now is your chance.
​
Just click the link below to watch the full movie in its entirety. Details on how you can watch Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse COUGHING for free throughout the year are described below. If you’re a fan of the comics, you won’t want to miss this one! The storyline follows Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Coughing as he tries to find his way home after being stranded on an alien planet. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse COUGHING is definitely a Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Coughing movie you don’t want to miss with stunning visuals and an action-packed plot! Plus, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Coughing online streaming is available on our website. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Coughing online free, which includes streaming options such as 123movies, Reddit, or TV shows from HBO Max or Netflix! Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Coughing Release in US Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Coughing hits theaters on September 23, 2023. Tickets to see the film at your local movie theater are available online here. The film is being released in a wide release so you can watch it in person.
​
Lightyear can all be streamed using an HBO Max or Hulu subscription. If you’d prefer to rent the movies, only the first two are on Prime Video. Otherwise, all three films can be rented on YouTube, Apple TV+, or Google Play Movies & TV.
​
The second film in the franchise, Lightyear, will be released on June 17, 2022. Right now, it’s not confirmed where the movie will be streamed after its big-screen release.
​
The Most Useless Cars to Ever Be Produced
Is Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse on Netflix?
Lightyear is not available to watch on Netflix. Suppose you’re interested in other movies and shows. In that case, one can access the vast library of titles within Netflix under various subscription costs depending on the plan you choose: $9.99 per month for the basic plan, $15.99 monthly for the standard plan, and $19.99 a month for the premium plan.
​
The Most Useless Cars to Ever Be Produced
Is Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse on Disney Plus?
No sign of Lightyear on Disney+, which is proof that the House of Mouse doesn’t have its hands on every franchise! Home to the likes of ‘Star Wars, ‘Marvel’, ‘Pixar’, National Geographic’, ESPN, STAR, and so much more, Disney+ is available at the annual membership fee of $79.99 or the monthly cost of $7.99. If you’re a fan of even one of these brands, then signing up to Disney+ is worth it, and there aren’t any ads, either.
​
The Most Useless Cars to Ever Be Produced
Is Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse on HBO Max?
Sorry, Lightyear is not available on HBO Max. There is a lot of content from HBO Max for $14.99 a month, such a subscription is ad-free, and it allows you to access all the titles in the library of HBO Max. The streaming platform announced an ad-supported version that costs a lot less at $9.99 per month.
​
20 Hells Angels Membership Requirements That Made Us Say 'Whoa'
Is Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse on Hulu?
They’re not on Hulu, either! But prices for this streaming service currently start at $6.99 per month or $69.99 for the whole year. The ad-free version costs $12.99 per month, $64.99 per month for Hulu + Live TV, or $70.99 for the ad-free Hulu + Live TV.
​
The Most Useless Cars to Ever Be Produced
Is Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse 2022 on Amazon Video?
Unfortunately, Lightyear is not available to stream for free on Amazon Prime Video. However, you can choose other shows and movies to watch from there as it has a wide variety of shows and movies that you can choose from for $14.99 a month.
​
The Most Useless Cars to Ever Be Produced
Is Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse on Peacock?
Lightyear is not available to watch on Peacock at the time of writing. Peacock offers a subscription costing $4.99 a month or $49.99 per year for a premium account. Like its namesake, the streaming platform is free with the content out in the open. However, limited.
​
The Most Useless Cars to Ever Be Produced
Who Is in the Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Cast?
Captain America himself, Chris Evans, will be the voice of the film’s titular Space Ranger. Apart from Evans, Keke Palmer (Scream Queens), Dale Soules (Orange Is the New Black), and Taika Waititi (Jojo Rabbit) have also been announced as part of the cast, lending their voices to other ambitious recruits at Star Command. The voice cast includes Uzo Aduba, James Brolin, Mary McDonald-Lewis, Efren Ramirez, Peter Sohn, and Isiah Whitlock Jr. Bonus: Check out this featurette where the cast talks about what Buzz Lightyear means to them.