#Conservative Partnership Institute

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Madeline Peltz and John Knefel at MMFA:

Media Matters found significant ties between authors, contributors, and partner organizations involved in Project 2025 — an extreme right-wing initiative organized by The Heritage Foundation to provide policy and personnel to the next Republican presidential administration — and the ongoing right-wing efforts to disenfranchise voters and sow confusion about the 2024 election. The Heritage Foundation itself is at the center of many of these efforts; The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer identified the conservative think tank as one of the election denial movement’s “leaders” following the 2020 election. Heritage has extensive connections to election denial groups through both direct collaboration on voter suppression policies and the Project 2025 advisory board, which includes more than 110 conservative groups.  According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “Project 2025 threatens to reverse progress made over the last four years by stripping crucial federal resources from election officials and weaponizing the Department of Justice against officials who make decisions the administration disagrees with.” The Project 2025 policy book, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, recommends dismantling the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which plays a key role in protecting American elections. Mandate’s chapter on the Federal Election Commission was written by Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage legal fellow with a decades-long career spreading voter fraud myths. The Heritage Foundation’s political arm, Heritage Action, is a member of the Only Citizens Vote Coalition — a collection of election denial activists and right-wing groups that voting rights experts say are spreading misinformation about noncitizen voting. Only Citizens Vote was organized by prominent election denier Cleta Mitchell, a Project 2025 contributor, and many of the Heritage plan’s advisory board members are also Only Citizen Vote Coalition partners. In collaboration with The Heritage Foundation and Project 2025, the groups and individuals listed here are at the forefront of efforts to sow chaos and confusion in the 2024 election.

Project 2025 partner groups are seeking a redux of their unsuccessful 2020 election-stealing efforts to sow chaos about a potential Kamala Harris win with their bogus crusade against the essentially nonexistent bogeyman of noncitizen voting.

PDF:

[super-ultra-mega-deluxe]

Simply believing in ML, or joining an ML org, will not help when the lights go out or food runs out. How can we contend with that?

Marxism-Leninism isn't an arbitrary set of beliefs for one to adopt on a whim, it is a political theory and specifically action, part of which is in fact to "help when the lights go out" or even better, to make sure they don't! communist politics- and really any politic- are what those politics do. Marx explicitly frames it as such, as an ideological formulation that is a tool for practical application. taken outside of its context and application, Marxism is an absurd nothing, as again are all politics. i could provide examples of how communists facilitate the production and distribution of goods, or otherwise manage economics at variable scale and locale, which is rather what i assume you mean to be getting at with your question. your framing is rather nonspecific however: in what economic and political context is there a communist party contending with failures in energy infrastructure and food production and distribution?

the "help when the lights go out" strikes a particular chord, as somewhat recently the socialist nation of Cuba has been forced to contend with fuel shortages; their domestic oil production can't meet the needs of the general populace, and oil imports are inconsistent due to the US embargo. the people of Cuba are, thankfully, not becoming grossly immiserated or dying en masse despite such being the intention of the embargo. they have instituted fuel rationing and rolling blackouts to further conserve fuel and maintain essential services, such as their healthcare system. this of itself is obviously only a reactive policy; the state has also been rebuilding and expanding its oil storage facilities to better handle fluctuations in supply, and more recently they have agreed to a bilateral development agreement with China to substantially expand Cuba's nascent solar power generation. paired with their newfound partnership with BRICS- a move which undermines the aforementioned embargo in a much more material way than a UN vote- Cuba is on a path to fully meet the energy needs of its people and even expand access over the next decade.

that all said, i doubt you specifically care much for Marxist-Leninist experiments as they exist, and are more concerned with the prefiguration of politics before anything like achieving state power, and more specifically within the imperial core, where denying the possibility of effecting revolutionary politics is the most prominent. there are not presently many Marxist-Leninist parties of note in the US, the imperial core, but even less principled communist parties nonetheless consider the economic realities of the workers they represent first and foremost. the old Black Panthers were perhaps the closest to a truly revolutionary socialist movement in the US, and one of the policies they are most famous for is the free breakfast program and the broader Survival Programs they ran. these programs provided food and medical care and education and transportation for many who were subject to economic insecurity; the failure of these programs was a failure of militancy and counterintelligence and scope. the modernly popular if unfortunately less coherent and less principled PSL also runs health and wellness programs, such as kitchens and exercise classes and vocational programs and so on, which is their attempt at replicating such formulations.

it is rather specifically a concern of communists to organize the proletariat to provide for their own needs outside the purview of a capitalist state, and every revolutionary of note before, during, and after seizing power emphasizes such. the ability to do so pending a revolutionary moment is necessarily limited however; you cannot build an administration of economy parallel to an extant state without coming into conflict with that state. even non-communist organizations attempt to build up community programs, but they are either dissolved or incorporated into the state apparatus or otherwise operate under its purview. the ultimate goal is then as always the destruction of the bourgeois state machine and the building of a proletarian state machine, the armies of people organized in enforcing the will of the proletariat as a class, which allows for the more concrete and pointed organization of the economy broadly.

[directactionforhope]

"Starting this month [June 2024], thousands of young people will begin doing climate-related work around the West as part of a new service-based federal jobs program, the American Climate Corps, or ACC. The jobs they do will vary, from wildland firefighters and “lawn busters” to urban farm fellows and traditional ecological knowledge stewards. Some will work on food security or energy conservation in cities, while others will tackle invasive species and stream restoration on public land. 

The Climate Corps was modeled on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps, with the goal of eventually creating tens of thousands of jobs while simultaneously addressing the impacts of climate change. 

Applications were released on Earth Day, and Maggie Thomas, President Joe Biden’s special assistant on climate, told High Country News that the program’s website has already had hundreds of thousands of views. Since its launch, nearly 250 jobs across the West have been posted, accounting for more than half of all the listed ACC positions. 

“Obviously, the West is facing tremendous impacts of climate change,” Thomas said. “It’s changing faster than many other parts of the country. If you look at wildfire, if you look at extreme heat, there are so many impacts. I think that there’s a huge role for the American Climate Corps to be tackling those crises.” ��

Most of the current positions are staffed through state or nonprofit entities, such as the Montana Conservation Corps or Great Basin Institute, many of which work in partnership with federal agencies that manage public lands across the West. In New Mexico, for example, members of Conservation Legacy’s Ecological Monitoring Crew will help the Bureau of Land Management collect soil and vegetation data. In Oregon, young people will join the U.S. Department of Agriculture, working in firefighting, fuel reduction and timber management in national forests. 

New jobs are being added regularly. Deadlines for summer positions have largely passed, but new postings for hundreds more positions are due later this year or on a rolling basis, such as the Working Lands Program, which is focused on “climate-smart agriculture.”  ...

On the ACC website, applicants can sort jobs by state, work environment and focus area, such as “Indigenous knowledge reclamation” or “food waste reduction.” Job descriptions include an hourly pay equivalent — some corps jobs pay weekly or term-based stipends instead of an hourly wage — and benefits. The site is fairly user-friendly, in part owing to suggestions made by the young people who participated in the ACC listening sessions earlier this year...

The sessions helped determine other priorities as well, Thomas said, including creating good-paying jobs that could lead to long-term careers, as well as alignment with the president’s Justice40 initiative, which mandates that at least 40% of federal climate funds must go to marginalized communities that are disproportionately impacted by climate change and pollution. 

High Country News found that 30% of jobs listed across the West have explicit justice and equity language, from affordable housing in low-income communities to Indigenous knowledge and cultural reclamation for Native youth...

While the administration aims for all positions to pay at least $15 an hour, the lowest-paid position in the West is currently listed at $11 an hour. Benefits also vary widely, though most include an education benefit, and, in some cases, health care, child care and housing. 

All corps members will have access to pre-apprenticeship curriculum through the North America’s Building Trades Union. Matthew Mayers, director of the Green Workers Alliance, called this an important step for young people who want to pursue union jobs in renewable energy. Some members will also be eligible for the federal pathways program, which was recently expanded to increase opportunities for permanent positions in the federal government...

 “To think that there will be young people in every community across the country working on climate solutions and really being equipped with the tools they need to succeed in the workforce of the future,” Thomas said, “to me, that is going to be an incredible thing to see.”"

-via High Country News, June 6, 2024

--

Note: You can browse Climate Corps job postings here, on the Climate Corps website. There are currently 314 jobs posted at time of writing!

Also, it says the goal is to pay at least $15 an hour for all jobs (not 100% meeting that goal rn), but lots of postings pay higher than that, including some over $20/hour!!

[reasonsforhope]

"Seven federal agencies are partnering to implement President Biden’s American Climate Corps, announcing this week they would work together to recruit 20,000 young Americans and fulfill the administration's vision for the new program. 

The goals spelled out in the memorandum of understanding include comprehensively tackling climate change, creating partnerships throughout various levels of government and the private sector, building a diverse corps and serving all American communities.

The agencies—which included the departments of Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, Labor and Energy, as well the Environmental Protection Agency and AmeriCorps—also vowed to ensure a “range of compensation and benefits” that open the positions up to a wider array of individuals and to create pathways to “high-quality employment.”  

Leaders from each of the seven agencies will form an executive committee for the Climate Corps, which Biden established in September, that will coordinate efforts with an accompanying working group. They will create the standards for ACC programs, set compensation guidelines and minimum terms of service, develop recruitment strategies, launch a centralized website and establish performance goals and objectives. The ACC groups will, beginning in January, hold listening sessions with potential applicants, labor unions, state and local governments, educational institutions and other stakeholders. 

The working group will also review all federal statutes and hiring authorities to remove any barriers to onboarding for the corps and standardize the practices across all participating agencies. Benefits for corps members will include housing, transportation, health care, child care, educational credit, scholarships and student loan forgiveness, stipends and non-financial services.

As part of the goal of the ACC, agencies will develop the corps so they can transition to “high-quality, family-sustaining careers with mobility potential” in the federal or other sectors. AmeriCorps CEO Michael Smith said the initiative would prepare young people for “good-paying union jobs.” 

Within three weeks of rolling out the ACC, EPA said more than 40,000 people—mostly in the 18-35 age range—expressed interest in joining the corps. The administration set an ambitious goal for getting the program underway, aiming to establish the corps’ first cohort in the summer of 2024. 

The corps members will work in roles related to ecosystem restoration and conservation, reforestation, waterway protection, recycling, energy conservation, clean energy deployment, disaster preparedness and recovery, fire resilience, resilient recreation infrastructure, research and outreach. The administration will look to ensure 40% of the climate-related investments flow to disadvantaged communities as part of its Justice40 initiative.  

EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the MOU would allow the ACC to “work across the federal family” to push public projects focused on environmental justice and clean energy. 

“The Climate Corps represents a significant step forward in engaging and nurturing young leaders who are passionate about climate action, furthering our journey towards a sustainable and equitable future,” Regan said. 

The ACC’s executive committee will hold its first meeting within the next 30 days. It will draw support from a new climate hub within AmeriCorps, as well as any staffing the agency heads designate."

-via Government Executive, December 20, 2023

-

This news comes with your regularly scheduled reminder that WE GOT THE AMERICAN CLIMATE CORPS ESTABLISHED LAST YEAR and basically no one know about/remembers it!!! Also if you want more info about the Climate Corps, inc. how to join, you can sign up to get updates here.

[updatingranboo]

ranboo retweeted this thread on different resources that help animals affected by the genocide in Palestine! 🐶🍉

Animals:

Sulala Animal Rescue - helps rescue stray animals on the Gaza strip -twitter -instagram -paypal -partnership with Animals Australia donation link

Animal Friends Shelter - charity cat shelter in Gaza -twitter -paypal -gofundme to help evacuate Animal Friends Shelter's family from Gaza

Palestinian Animal League - leading voice for animal protection in the West Bank, Palestine -website -donate

Salam Animal Care - independent rescuer of stray animals in Gaza -twitter -paypal

Palestinian Cat Shelter - "A lover of homeless cats, dogs and all animals alike" in Gaza -twitter -paypal

Wildlife/nature organizations:

Nature Palestine Society - focus in research, protection, conservation, and education about nature, biodiversity and environment in Palestine -website

Palestine Wildlife Society - focus in the conservation and enhancement of Palestinian biodiversity & wildlife -website -membership/donate

Palestinian Institute for Biodiversity & Sustainability - focus in research, education, conservation, culture and heritage, plus promotion of responsible human interactions with the environment -website -donate

[mimi-0007]

****†** EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE. ****Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of policy proposals to thoroughly reshape the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Established in 2022, the project aims to recruit tens of thousands of conservatives to the District of Columbia to replace existing federal civil servants—whom Republicans characterize as part of the "deep state"—and to further the objectives of the next Republican president. It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory—which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration. Unitary executive theory is a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States. Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the entire government, particularly with regard to economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes slashing funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ), dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor of fossil fuel production, eliminating the Department of Commerce, and ending the independence of various federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism. .

Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other government agencies, or terminated. Scientific research would receive federal funding only if it suits conservative principles. The Project urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care and to restrict access to contraception. The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank that leads the development of Project 2025, asserted in April 2024 that "the radical Left hates families" and "wants to eliminate the family and replace it with the state" while driving the country to emulate totalitarian nations, such as North Korea. The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity, stating in its Mandate that "freedom is defined by God, not man." Project 2025 proposes criminalizing pornography, removing protections against discrimination based on sexual or gender identity, and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, as well as affirmative action. The Project advises the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and to direct the DOJ to pursue Donald Trump's adversaries by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. It recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants across the country. It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of such sentences. Project director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." Dans admitted that it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many people to join the government in order to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future President to "regain control" of the federal government. Although the project does not promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Donald Trump and his presidential campaign. The Heritage Foundation has developed Project 2025 in collaboration with over 100 partners including Turning Point USA, led by its executive director Charlie Kirk; the Conservative Partnership Institute including former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows as senior partner; the Center for Renewing America, led by former Trump Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought; and America First Legal, led by former Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller. The Project is detailed in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a version of which Heritage has written as transition plans for each prospective Republican president since 1980. Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian Christian nationalist movement and a path for the United States to become an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in the contexts of centralizing power, climate change, and foreign trade.

[marta-bee]

John Oliver said something about voting last night, that I've been struggling with how to talk about. Namely, that when you vote it doesn't have to be for someone you mostly agree with or even just agree more with than the other candidate; sometimes it can just be the person you'd most like to hold accountable.

I like Harris in a lot of ways. Her message of inclusion is one I think a lot of Americans need just now. Her big beautiful blended family (and her biracial self!) resembles America more than any presidential candidate we've seen. Her policies aren't sweeping, they're practical and specific in a way I think sees what working people are struggling with. And there are things I like much less. Her "public-private partnerships" buy into capitalism and free market as the solution for everything, to give one example. Not every problem can be solved with a tax break or even a check. But this is America, so what do you expect, and also her tax breaks are at least targeted toward people who most need them. Her immigration policy might be a bit too heavy on enforcement for my tastes and not enough on better welcoming my new neighbors in a way that lets them fully participate in society, but on the other hand, she's not talking revulsion and promising the purge.

With Gaza, it's hard to judge because so much of foreign policy happens behind closed doors. Joe is clearly no fan of Netanyahu and has tried to restrain him, Kamala too, but they've clearly not had much impact on him. What they're doing out of the public eye, how much worse things would be for Gaza without their involvement, it's impossible to say. I do hate Harris feels like she had to be more inclusive for conservatives and probably that's why she was less working publicly with the uncommitted movement. It sucks. It's been a weird election all around, and the traditional conservatives who feel like they've lost their party to Trump aren't the only ones suffering: traditional liberals, much less leftists, have lost the coalition that should be advocating and organizing around their priorities. Hopefully we'll soon have a reasonable opposition we can work with rather than a single functioning party forced to be too big a tent than would be ideal versus a dangerous madman on the other side. We'd all be better off.

But my point on Gaza, and this circles back to Oliver. Bernie Sanders has promised to introduce legislation barring more sale of weapons to Israel in the next Congress. And I know what president I'd want to be working with on that. Even if Gaza is the only issue you're concerned about, even if you think Harris is inexcusable here, you can still see her as the lever of power you'd rather hold accountable.

God (or whatever secular impulses and institutions we've set up in His stead) bless the United States of America. God save us all. If anyone wants to talk about anything privately to help you work out how you want to square your conscience with your vote, I'm around today and my Tumblr messages are open. And if not, I'll see you all on the other side.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[Project 2025 :: blueprint for a second Trump term of office]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 4, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 05, 2024

Monday, July 1, was a busy day. That morning the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Donald J. Trump v. United States that gives the president absolute immunity for committing crimes while engaging in official acts. On the same day, Trump White House strategist Steve Bannon began a four-month sentence for contempt of Congress at a low-security federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut. Before he began serving his sentence, he swore he would “be more powerful in prison than I am now.” 

“On July 2, Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, went onto Bannon’s webcast War Room to hearten Bannon’s right-wing followers after Bannon’s incarceration. Former representative Dave Brat (R-VA) was sitting in for Bannon and conducted the interview.  

“[W]e are going to win,” Roberts told them. “We're in the process of taking this country back…. We ought to be really encouraged by what happened yesterday. And in spite of all of the injustice, which, of course, friends and audience of this show, of our friend Steve know, we are going to prevail.”

“That Supreme Court ruling yesterday on immunity is vital, and it's vital for a lot of reasons,” Roberts said, adding that the nation needs a strong leader because “the radical left…has taken over our institutions.” “[W]e are in the process of the second American Revolution,” he said, “which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

Roberts took over the presidency of the Heritage Foundation in 2021, and he shifted it from a conservative think tank to an organization devoted to “institutionalizing Trumpism.” Central to that project for Roberts has been working to bring the policies of Hungary’s president Viktor Orbán, a close ally of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, to the United States. 

In 2023, Roberts brought the Heritage Foundation into a formal partnership with Hungary’s Danube Institute, a think tank overseen by a foundation that is directly funded by the Hungarian government; as journalist Casey Michel reported, it is, “for all intents and purposes, a state-funded front for pushing pro-Orbán rhetoric.” The Danube Institute has given grants to far-right figures in the U.S., and, Michel noted in March, “we have no idea how much funding may be flowing directly from Orbán’s regime to the Heritage Foundation.” Roberts has called modern Hungary “not just a model for conservative statecraft but the model.”

Orbán has been open about his determination to overthrow the concept of western democracy and replace it with what he has, on different occasions, called “illiberal democracy” or “Christian democracy.” He wants to replace the multiculturalism at the heart of democracy with Christian culture, stop the immigration that he believes undermines Hungarian culture, and reject “adaptable family models” in favor of “the Christian family model.” He is moving Hungary away from the stabilizing international systems supported by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

No matter what he calls it, Orbán’s model is not democracy at all. As soon as he retook office in 2010, he began to establish control over the media, cracking down on those critical of his far-right political party, Fidesz, and rewarding those who toed the party line. In 2012 his supporters rewrote the country’s constitution to strengthen his hand, and extreme gerrymandering gave his party more power while changes to election rules benefited his campaigns. Increasingly, he used the power of the state to concentrate wealth among his cronies, and he reworked the country’s judicial system and civil service system to stack it with his loyalists, who attacked immigrants, women, and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. While Hungary still holds elections, state control of the media and the apparatus of voting means that it is impossible for the people of Hungary to remove him from power.

Trump supporters have long admired Orbán’s nationalism and centering of Christianity, while the fact that Hungary continues to have elections enables them to pretend that the country remains a democracy.

The tight cooperation between Heritage and Orbán illuminates Project 2025, the blueprint for a new kind of government dictated by Trump or a Trump-like figure. In January 2024, Roberts told Lulu Garcia-Navarro of the New York Times that Project 2025 was designed to jump-start a right-wing takeover of the government. “[T]he Trump administration, with the best of intentions, simply got a slow start,” Roberts said. “And Heritage and our allies in Project 2025 believe that must never be repeated.”

Project 2025 stands on four principles that it says the country must embrace: the U.S. must “[r]estore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children”; “[d]ismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people”; “[d]efend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats”; and “[s]ecure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls ‘the Blessings of Liberty.’”

In almost 1,000 pages, the document explains what these policies mean for ordinary Americans. Restoring the family and protecting children means using “government power…to restore the American family.” That, the document says, means eliminating any words associated with sexual orientation or gender identity, gender, abortion, reproductive health, or reproductive rights from any government rule, regulation, or law. Any reference to transgenderism is “pornography” and must be banned. 

The overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the right to abortion must be gratefully celebrated, the document says, but the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision accomplishing that end “is just the beginning.” 

Dismantling the administrative state starts from the premise that “people are policy.” Frustrated because nonpartisan civil employees thwarted much of Trump’s agenda in his first term, the authors of Project 2025 call for firing much of the current government workforce—about 2 million people work for the U.S. government—and replacing it with loyalists who will carry out a right-wing president’s demands. 

The plan asserts “the existential need” for an authoritarian leader to dismantle the current government that regulates business, provides a social safety net, and protects civil rights. Instead of the government Americans have built since 1933, the plan says the national government must “decentralize and privatize as much as possible” and leave “the great majority of domestic activities to state, local, and private governance.”

It attacks “America’s largest corporations, its public institutions, and its popular culture,” for their embrace of international organizations like the United Nations and the European Union and for their willingness to work with other countries. It calls for abandoning all of those partnerships and alliances. 

Also on July 1, Orbán took over the rotating presidency of the European Union. He will be operating for six months in that position under a slogan taken from Trump and adapted to Europe: “Make Europe Great Again.” The day before taking that office, Orbán announced that his political party was forming a new alliance with far-right parties in Austria and the Czech Republic in order to launch a “new era of European politics.”

Tomorrow, Orbán will travel to Moscow to meet with Russian president Vladimir Putin. On July 2, Orbán met with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv, where he urged Zelensky to accept a “ceasefire.” In the U.S., Trump’s team has suggested that, if reelected, Trump will call for an immediate ceasefire and will negotiate with Putin over how much of Ukraine Putin can keep while also rejecting Ukraine for NATO membership and scaling back U.S. commitment to NATO. 

“I would expect a very quick end to the conflict,” Kevin Roberts said. Putin says he supports Trump’s plan. 

Roberts’s “second American revolution,” which would destroy American democracy in an echo of a small-time dictator like Orbán and align our country with authoritarian leaders, seems a lot less patriotic than the first American Revolution. 

For my part, I will stand with the words written 248 years ago today, saying that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mariacallous]

BERLIN — The latest effort to craft a path to survival for Germany’s beleaguered rabbinical schools is underway — with help from thousands of miles away in California and Jerusalem.

An American Conservative rabbi and an Israeli Reform rabbi have been tapped to lead seminaries associated with the University of Potsdam.

The Los Angeles-based American Jewish University and its Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies this week announced a “groundbreaking partnership” with the Central Council of Jews in Germany to promote “sustainable” Jewish clergy training at the University of Potsdam.

Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, Ziegler’s dean, accepted the Central Council’s invitation as the founding leader of a new German seminary associated with the Masorti or Conservative movement.

“It’s absurd to have an American rabbi running the school,” Artson said he told the Central Council. “The only thing more absurd is not having a school.”

Meanwhile, Rabbi Yehodaya Amir, professor emeritus at the Reform movement’s Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem, will oversee a liberal or Reform seminary being launched at the university.

The new leaders are stepping into a tumultuous situation.

The University of Potsdam has long been home to two rabbinical schools, the liberal/Reform seminary Abraham Geiger College and its Masorti/Conservative sibling, Zacharias Frankel College, founded in 1999 and 2013 respectively by Rabbi Walter Homolka.

But in late 2022, Homolka resigned from all positions in German Jewish institutions following allegations that he had abused his power and created an atmosphere of fear among students and staff. He eventually sold all his shares of Geiger and Frankel for 25,000 euros to the Jewish Community of Berlin, which intended to keep them going.

The organized Jewish community has since struggled to fund the schools, which previously had the Central Council and the German government as their main backers. In the wake of the Homolka scandal, the Central Council had declared it could no longer support the institutions as they stood. It announced plans to revamp rabbinical training so that no one figure would wield too much power.

This month, the council announced a new foundation to support two new schools — a liberal one named for Regina Jonas and a Masorti one named for Abraham Joshua Heschel, both pioneering rabbis in early 20th-century Germany with global and enduring significance. They are also launching a cantorial school under the name of the 19th-century composer of Jewish liturgical music Louis Lewandowski.

Now, the council has made official its chosen partners to operate the schools — and for both it looked outside Germany.

For the Masorti seminary, it turned to Artson, who also served as dean of the Frankel seminary after Homolka cold-called him to ask for his support — a request that he said had conferred a “sacred mission” upon him.

“I thought that this was an opportunity to step up and to help Europeans get the training they would want, to energize the Jewish community,” Artson told JTA. “And that’s really what we’ve done.”

Artson said he anticipated a limited future for his involvement and that of his fellow Ziegler dean, Rabbi Cheryl Peretz.

“We see our role as stepping in and launching this important program, and then at some point getting out of the way so that Europeans can run it without us,” he said.

Current rabbinical and cantorial students were told last week — as eight new rabbis and cantors were ordained — that they will be invited to transfer seamlessly to the new seminaries.

As for what might change for them, Artson said his focus was on “bringing transparency and equal funding and stability��� as well as building stronger ties to the global Masorti movement. “This will be a way of organizing a rabbinical school that’s answerable to the public and will be able to last,” he said.

Amir, the HUC professor of Jewish thought who is heading the liberal seminary, said he was heartened by the fact that the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the North American Reform movement’s rabbinical association, was prepared to certify the new program, meaning that its graduates would have the same status in the movement as Geiger’s.

“The fact that the CCAR is considering to grant us such a status by now, before we have even taken our first steps, is a solid and wonderful expression of trust,” Amir told JTA.

Josef Schuster, chair of the Central Council, said support from the two movements augured “a good day for rabbinical and cantor training in Germany and a good day for the Jewish communities in our country.”

The appointments have elicited dissent. The World Union of Progressive Judaism and its European sister organization accused the Central Council of failing to involve them in their plans and of endangering “the unity of the Jewish community.”

And Berlin’s official Jewish community — which, as owner of the original seminaries, has the most to lose — lashed out over the selection of Artson in particular, noting that he has faced allegations of sexism at Ziegler.

Gideon Joffe, the community’s president, accused the Central Council of “conducting a public defamation campaign against the Abraham Geiger College.”

He added in a statement: “Even the appearance of an abuse of power, as is clearly evident in the allegations against Rabbi Artson, is unacceptable for the management of a rabbinical seminary,”

The investigations add to ongoing tumult at AJU and Zeigler, where Artson has worked since 1999. The school recently sold its campus in Los Angeles and slashed tuition in a bid to attract more students.

A third-party investigation of the sexism allegations commissioned by American Jewish University found no systemic misconduct, according to AJU, which did not release the full report. A second inquiry, by the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, is underway.

Artson would not comment on the ongoing investigation, except to say it “is wrapping up.” But he noted that the first investigation found “no systemic homophobia or sexism” at Ziegler. “And so I’m really focusing on building the future.”

The statement is “unworthy of them,” Artson said about the Berlin Jewish Community, known by its German nickname Gemeinde, meaning community. “But I understand that in the moment, they’re letting their emotions run things.”

He added, “I think that the Gemeinde does many valuable and important things, and we certainly want to be able to support them in those enterprises, too, just not in this particular instance.”

An irony of the new arrangement is that in seeking to distance rabbinical training as much as possible from Homolka, who chose the Gemeinde as his successor, the Central Council has selected a rabbi who long worked with him. According to a source with knowledge of the situation, Artson had expenses covered but took no salary while working with the Frankel seminary.

For his part, Artson said he remains inspired by Geiger and Frankel, figures who helped make Germany a powerhouse of Jewish innovation in the century prior to the Holocaust.

“I have in my office portraits of both Rabbi Geiger and Rabbi Frankel,” Artson said. “They remain founding figures, even if their names are no longer on the school.”

But the two new namesakes — Heschel, who narrowly escaped Germany in 1940, and Jonas, the first woman to be ordained as a rabbi, who was murdered at Auschwitz — are “also very special,” he said.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil will not renew agreement with German Spix’s macaw breeder

This measure will not impact the recovery and conservation of the endangered species, exclusive to the Caatinga, says ICMBio

The Brazilian government will not renew an agreement signed five years ago with the Association for the Conservation of Threatened Parrots (ACTP). This decision should not halt the reintroduction of the Spix’s macaw in the Caatinga, but it may have other socio-environmental impacts.

“This decision was made collectively with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MMA) and the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama),” says Mauro Pires, president of ICMBio (the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation).

The partnership, established on June 7, 2019, enabled the reintroduction of birds transferred from Germany into protected areas in the Caatinga, where the species (Cyanopsitta spixii) had been extinct since the 2000s due to trafficking and environmental destruction. Some of the 20 birds released in 2022 fell prey to predators, and there have been no releases in subsequent years.

“The reintroduction of the bird in Brazil might face some delays, but the animals in other breeding centers are sufficient to maintain the species’ conservation program,” says Marcelo Marcelino de Oliveira, director of Research, Evaluation, and Monitoring of Biodiversity at ICMBio.

Continue reading.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Andrew Perez and Adam Rawnsley at Rolling Stone:

THE CONSULTING FIRM led by Leonard Leo, the architect of the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, has worked for billionaire Charles Koch’s political advocacy network and a dark-money group that is currently arguing a Supreme Court case designed to preempt a wealth tax, according to documents obtained by Rolling Stone. The firm even worked to promote a book by Donald Trump cronies Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie. Leo has played a central role in shifting the high court and its decisions far to the right. As former President Donald Trump’s judicial adviser, Leo helped select three of the Supreme Court’s six conservative justices. He also leads a dark-money network that boosted their confirmations and helps determine what cases the justices hear and shape their rulings. The Supreme Court connection has paid off for Leo — big time. In 2021, he was gifted control of a $1.6 billion political advocacy slush fund. Over the past decade, Leo’s dark money network has plowed more than $100 million into his for-profit consulting firm, CRC Advisors. 

Leo co-chairs the Federalist Society, the conservative lawyers network. He is also the chairman of CRC. Like many consulting firms, CRC does not publicly disclose its clients. However, several of the firm’s clients were named in resumes that applicants submitted to an online jobs bank hosted by the Conservative Partnership Institute, which accidentally left the files exposed online. One CRC employee’s 2024 resume says his clients include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a dark-money group arguing a case before the Supreme Court this term that is designed to slam the door shut on a federal wealth tax. Experts say the case could upend the nation’s tax code.  “In the last Congress, legislation to establish a wealth tax was introduced in both the House and the Senate,” CEI wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court, adding that justices should act now to “head off a major constitutional clash down the line.” During oral arguments in December, Justice Samuel Alito presented a hypothetical where “somebody graduates from school and starts up a little business in his garage, and 20 years later, 30 years later, the person is a billionaire,” and asked whether the government “can Congress tax all of that.” According to the CRC employee’s 2024 resume, Leo’s firm has also worked for the Koch network’s political advocacy arm, Americans for Prosperity. AFP’s super PAC spent more than $40 million supporting former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s failed Republican primary campaign against Trump this election cycle. AFP’s charitable arm has supported a case at the Supreme Court this term pushing justices to block the government from influencing content moderation by social media platforms.

Rolling Stone exposes radical right-wing SCOTUS puppetmaster Leonard Leo's consulting firm CRC Advisors, whose clients were leaked online.

[theculturedmarxist]

SHANGHAI — Over the past generation, China’s most important relationships were with the more developed world, the one that used to be called the “first world.” Mao Zedong proclaimed China to be the leader of a “third” (non-aligned) world back in the 1970s, and the term later came to be a byword for deprivation. The notion of China as a developing country continues to this day, even as it has become a superpower; as the tech analyst Dan Wang has joked, China will always remain developing — once you’re developed, you’re done. 

Fueled by exports to the first world, China became something different — something not of any of the three worlds. We’re still trying to figure out what that new China is and how it now relates to the world of deprivation — what is now called the Global South, where the majority of human beings alive today reside. But amid that uncertainty, Chinese exports to the Global South now exceed those to the Global North considerably — and they’re growing. 

The International Monetary Fund expects Asian countries to account for 70% of growth globally this year. China must “shape a new international system that is conducive to hedging against the negative impacts of the West’s decoupling,” the scholar and former People’s Liberation Army theorist Cheng Yawen wrote recently. That plan starts with Southeast Asia and extends throughout the Global South, a terrain that many Chinese intellectuals see as being on their side in the widening divide between the West and the rest. 

“The idea is that what China is today, fast-growing countries from Bangladesh to Brazil could be tomorrow.”

China isn’t exporting plastic trinkets to these places but rather the infrastructure for telecommunications, transportation and digitally driven “smart cities.” In other words, China is selling the developmental model that raised its people out of obscurity and poverty to developed global superpower status in a few short decades to countries with people who have decided that they want that too. 

The world China is reorienting itself to is a world that, in many respects, looks like China did a generation ago. On offer are the basics of development — education, health care, clean drinking water, housing. But also more than that — technology, communication and transportation.

Back in April, on the eve of a trip to China, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva sat down for an interview with Reuters. “I am going to invite Xi Jinping to come to Brazil,” he said, “to get to know Brazil, to show him the projects that we have of interest for Chinese investment. … What we want is for the Chinese to make investments to generate new jobs and generate new productive assets in Brazil.” After Lula and Xi had met, the Brazilian finance minister proclaimed that “President Lula wants a policy of reindustrialization. This visit starts a new challenge for Brazil: bringing direct investments from China.” Three months later, the battery and electric vehicle giant BYD announced a $624 million investment to build a factory in Brazil, its first outside Asia.

Across the Global South, fast-growing countries from Bangladesh to Brazil can send raw materials to China and get technological devices in exchange. The idea is that what China is today, they could be tomorrow.

At The Kunming Institute of Botany

In April, I went to Kunming to visit one of China’s most important environmental conservation outfits — the Kunming Institute of Botany. Like the British Museum’s antiquities collected from everywhere that the empire once extended, the seed bank here (China’s largest) aspires to acquire thousands of samples of various plant species and become a regional hub for future biotech research. 

From the Kunming train station, you can travel by Chinese high-speed rail to Vientiane; if all goes according to plan, the line will soon be extended to Bangkok. At Yunnan University across town, the economics department researches “frontier economics” with an eye to Southeast Asian neighboring states, while the international relations department focuses on trade pacts within the region and a community of anthropologists tries to figure out what it all means. 

Kunming is a bland, air-conditioned provincial capital in a province of startling ethnic and geographic diversity. In this respect, it is a template for Chinese development around Southeast Asia. Perhaps in the future, Dhaka, Naypyidaw and Phnom Penh will provide the reassuring boredom of a Kunming afternoon. 

Imagine you work at the consulate of Bangladesh in Kunming. Why are you in Kunming? What does Kunming have that you want?

The Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore lyrically described Asia’s communities as organic and spiritual in contrast with the materialism of the West. As Tagore spoke of the liberatory powers of art, his Chinese listeners scoffed. The Chinese poet Wen Yiduo, who moved to Kunming during World War II and is commemorated with a statue at Yunnan Normal University in Kunming, wrote that Tagore’s work had no form: “The greatest fault in Tagore’s art is that he has no grasp of reality. Literature is an expression of life and even metaphysical poetry cannot be an exception. Everyday life is the basic stuff of literature, and the experiences of life are universal things.” 

“Xi Jinping famously said that China doesn’t export revolution. But what else do you call train lines, 5G connectivity and scientific research centers appearing in places that previously had none of these things?”

If Tagore’s Bengali modernism championed a spiritual lens for life rather than the materiality of Western colonialists, Chinese modernists decided that only by being more materialist than Westerners could they regain sovereignty. Mao had said rural deprivation was “一穷二白” — poor and empty; Wen accused Tagore’s poetry of being formless. Hegel sneered that Asia had no history, since the same phenomena simply repeated themselves again and again — the cycle of planting and harvest in agricultural societies. 

For modernists, such societies were devoid of historical meaning in addition to being poor and readily exploited. The amorphous realm of the spirit was for losers, the Chinese May 4th generation decided. Railroads, shipyards and electrification offered salvation.

Today, as Chinese roads, telecoms and entrepreneurs transform Bangladesh and its peers in the developing world, you could say that the argument has been won by the Chinese. Chinese infrastructure creates a new sort of blank generic urban template, one seen first in Shenzhen, then in Kunming and lately in Vientiane, Dhaka or Indonesian mining towns. 

The sleepy backwaters of Southeast Asia have seen previous waves of Chinese pollinators. Low Lan Pak, a tin miner from Guangdong, established a revolutionary state in Indonesia in the 18th century. Li Mi, a Kuomintang general, set up an independent republic in what is now northern Myanmar after World War II. 

New sorts of communities might walk on the new roads and make calls on the new telecom networks and find work in the new factories that have been built with Chinese technology and funded by Chinese money across Southeast Asia. One Bangladeshi investor told me that his government prefers direct investment to aid — aid organizations are incentivized to portray Bangladesh as eternally poor, while Huawei and Chinese investors play up the country’s development prospects and bright future. In the latter, Bangladeshis tend to agree.

“Is China a place, or is it a recipe for social structure that can be implemented generically anywhere?”

The majority of human beings alive today live in a world of not enough: not enough food; not enough security; not enough housing, education, health care; not enough rights for women; not enough potable water. They are desperate to get out of there, as China has. They might or might not like Chinese government policies or the transactional attitudes of Chinese entrepreneurs, but such concerns are usually of little importance to countries struggling to bootstrap their way out of poverty.

The first world tends to see the third as a rebuke and a threat. Most Southeast Asian countries have historically borne abuse in relationship to these American fears. Most American companies don’t tend to see Pakistan or Bangladesh or Sumatra as places they’d like invest money in. But opportunity beckons for Chinese companies seeking markets outside their nation’s borders and finding countries with rapidly growing populations and GDPs. Imagine a Huawei engineer in a rural Bangladeshi village, eating a bad lunch with the mayor, surrounded by rice paddies — he might remember the Hunan of his childhood.  

Xi Jinping famously said that China doesn’t export revolution. But what else do you call train lines, 5G connectivity and scientific research centers appearing in places that previously had none of these things? 

Across the vastness of a world that most first-worlders would not wish to visit, Chinese entrepreneurs are setting up electric vehicle and battery companies, installing broadband and building trains. The world that is looming into view on Huawei’s 2022 business report is one in which Asia is the center of the global economy and China sits at its core, the hub from which sophisticated and carbon-neutral technologies are distributed. Down the spokes the other way come soybeans, jute and nickel. Lenin’s term for this kind of political economy was imperialism. 

If the Chinese economy is the set of processes that created and create China, then its exports today are China — technologies, knowledge, communication networks, forms of organization. But is China a place, or is it a recipe for social structure that can be implemented generically anywhere?

Huawei Station

Huawei’s connections to the Chinese Communist Party remain unclear, but there is certainly a case of elective affinities. Huawei’s descriptions of selfless, nameless engineers working to bring telecoms to the countryside of Bangladesh is reminiscent of Party propaganda and “socialist realist” art. As a young man, Ren Zhengfei, Huawei’s CEO, spent time in the Chongqing of Mao’s “third front,” where resources were redistributed to develop new urban centers; the logic of starting in rural areas and working your way to the center, using infrastructure to rappel your way up, is embedded within the Maoist ideas that he studied at the time. Today, it underpins Huawei’s business development throughout the Global South. 

I stopped by the Huawei Analyst Summit in April to see if I could connect the company’s history to today. The Bildungsroman of Huawei’s corporate development includes battles against entrenched state-owned monopolies in the more developed parts of the country. The story goes that Huawei couldn’t make inroads in established markets against state-owned competitors, so got started in benighted rural areas where the original leaders had to brainstorm what to do if rats ate the cables or rainstorms swept power stations away; this story is mobilized today to explain their work overseas. 

Perhaps at one point, Huawei could have been just another boring corporation selling plastic objects to consumers across the developed world, but that time ended definitively with Western sanctions in 2019, effectively banning the company from doing business in the U.S. The sanctions didn’t kill Huawei, obviously, and they may have made it stronger. They certainly made it weirder, more militant and more focused on the markets largely scorned by the Ericssons and Nokias of the world. Huawei retrenched to its core strength: providing rural and remote areas with access to connectivity across difficult terrain with the intention that these networks will fuel telehealth and digital education and rapidly scale the heights of development.

Huawei used to do this with dial-up modems in China, but now it is building 5G networks across the Global South. The Chinese government is supportive of these efforts; Huawei’s HQ has a subway station named for the company, and in 2022 the government offered the company massive subsidies.

“For many countries in the Global South, the model of development exemplified by Shenzhen seems plausible and attainable.”

For years, the notion of an ideological struggle between the U.S. and China was dismissed; China is capitalist, they said. Just look at the Louis Vuitton bags. This misses a central truth of the economy of the 21st century. The means of production now are internet servers, which are used for digital communication, for data farms and blockchain, for AI and telehealth. Capitalists control the means of production in the United States, but the state controls the means of production in China. In the U.S. and countries that implicitly accept its tech dominance, private businesspeople dictate the rules of the internet, often to the displeasure of elected politicians who accuse them of rigging elections, fueling inequality or colluding with communists. The difference with China, in which the state has maintained clear regulatory control over the internet since the early days, couldn’t be clearer. 

The capitalist system pursues frontier technologies and profits, but companies like Huawei pursue scalability to the forgotten people of the world. For better or worse, it’s San Francisco or Shenzhen. For many countries in the Global South, the model of development exemplified by Shenzhen seems more plausible and attainable. Nobody thinks they can replicate Silicon Valley, but many seem to think they can replicate Chinese infrastructure-driven middle-class consumerism.

As Deng Xiaoping said, it doesn’t matter if it is a black cat or a white cat, just get a cat that catches mice. Today, leaders of Global South countries complain about the ideological components of American aid; they just want a cat that can catch their mice. Chinese investment is blank — no ideological strings attached. But this begs the question: If China builds the future of Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Laos, then is their future Chinese?

Telecommunications and 5G is at the heart of this because connectivity can enable rapid upgrades in health and education via digital technology such as telehealth, whereby people in remote villages are able to consult with doctors and hospitals in more developed regions. For example, Huawei has retrofitted Thailand’s biggest and oldest hospital with 5G to communicate with villages in Thailand’s poor interior — the sort of places a new Chinese high-speed train line could potentially provide links with the outside world — offering Thai villagers without the ability to travel into town the opportunity to get medical treatments and consultations remotely. 

The IMF has proposed that Asia’s developing belt “should prioritize reforms that boost innovation and digitalization while accelerating the green energy transition,” but there is little detail about who exactly ought to be doing all of that building and connecting. In many cases and places, it’s Chinese infrastructure and companies like Huawei that are enabling Thai villagers to live as they do in Guizhou.

Chinese Style Modernization?

The People’s Republic of China is “infinitely stronger than the Soviet Union ever was,” the U.S. ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns, told Politico in April. This prowess “is based on the extraordinary strength of the Chinese economy — its science and technology research base, its innovative capacity and its ambitions in the Indo-Pacific to be the dominant power in the future.” This increasingly feels more like the official position of the U.S. government than a random comment.

Ten years ago, Xi Jinping proposed the notion of a “maritime Silk Road” to the Indonesian Parliament. Today, Indonesia is building an entirely new capital — Nusantara — for which China is providing “smart city” technologies. Indonesia has a complex history with ethnic Chinese merchants, who played an intermediary role between Indigenous people and Western colonists in the 19th century and have been seen as CCP proxies for the past half century or so. But the country is nevertheless moving decisively towards China’s pole, adopting Chinese developmental rhythms and using Chinese technology and infrastructure to unlock the door to the future. “The internet, roads, ports, logistics — most of these were built by Chinese companies,” observed a local scholar. 

The months since the 20th Communist Party Congress have seen the introduction of what Chinese diplomats call “Chinese-style modernization,” a clunky slogan that can evoke the worst and most boring agitprop of the Soviet era. But the concept just means exporting Chinese bones to other social bodies around the world. 

If every apartment decorated with IKEA furniture looks the same, prepare for every city in booming Asia to start looking like Shenzhen. If you like clean streets, bullet trains, public safety and fast Wi-Fi, this may not be a bad thing. 

Chinese trade with Southeast Asia is roughly double that between China and the U.S., and Chinese technology infrastructure is spreading out from places like the “Huawei University” at Indonesia’s Bandung Institute of Technology, which plans to train 100,000 telecom engineers in the next five years. We’re about to see a generation of “barefoot doctors” throughout Southeast Asia traveling by moped across landscapes of underdevelopment connected to hubs of medical data built by Chinese companies with Chinese technology. 

In 1955, the year of the Bandung Conference in Indonesia, the non-aligned world was almost entirely poor, cut off from the means of production in a world where nearly 50% of GDP globally was in the U.S. Today, the logic of that landmark conference is alive today in Chinese informal networks across the Global South, with the key difference that China can now offer these countries the possibility of building their own future without talking to anyone from the Global North. 

Welcome to the Sinosphere, where the tides of Chinese development lap over its borders into the remote forests of tropical Asia, and beyond.

[blueiscoool]

Very Rare Half-Shekel Coin From Year Three of the Great Revolt Discovered

Recent excavations by archaeologists from the Hebrew University in the Ophel area south of the Temple Mount uncovered the remains of a monumental public building from the Second Temple period that was destroyed in 70 CE.

Numerous Jewish coins, the majority of which were bronze, from the Great Revolt (66-70 CE) were discovered in the destruction layer. This collection also contained a particularly uncommon and rare discovery: a silver coin with a half-shekel denomination that dates to around 69/70 CE.

The Great Revolt was the first of several uprisings against the Roman Empire by the Jewish population of Judea.

The revolt was in response to the Romans’ increasing religious tensions and high taxation, which resulted in the looting of the Second Temple and the arrest of senior Jewish political and religious figures. A large-scale rebellion overran the Roman garrison in Judea, forcing the pro-Roman King Herod Agrippa II to abandon Jerusalem.

A coin discovered in the ruins of a Second Temple-era building was most likely used to pay an annual tax for worship at the site; most coins of this type are bronze.

The dig was carried out by a team from the Hebrew University, led by Prof. Uzi Leibner of the Institute of Archaeology, in partnership with the Herbert W. Armstrong College in Edmond, Oklahoma, and with the support of the East Jerusalem Development Company, the Israel Antiquities Authority, and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. The rare coin was cleaned at the conservation laboratory of the Institute of Archaeology and identified by Dr. Yoav Farhi, the team’s numismatic expert and curator of the Kadman Numismatic Pavilion at the Eretz Israel Museum in Tel Aviv.

“This is the third coin of this type found in excavations in Jerusalem, and one of the few ever found in archeological excavations,” said the researchers.

During the Great Revolt against Rome, the Jews in Jerusalem minted bronze and silver coins. Most of the silver coins featured a goblet on one side, with ancient Hebrew script above it noting the year of the Revolt. Depending on its denomination, the coins also included an inscription around the border noting either, “Israel Shekel,” “Half-Shekel,” or “Quarter-Shekel.” The other side of these coins showcased a branch with three pomegranates, surrounded by an inscription in ancient Hebrew script, “Holy Jerusalem.”

Throughout the Roman era the authority to produce silver coins was reserved solely for the emperor. During the Revolt, the minting of coins, especially those made of silver, was a political statement and an expression of national liberation from Roman rule by the Jewish rebels. Indeed, throughout the Roman period leading up to the Great Revolt, no silver coins were minted by Jews, not even during the rule of King Herod the Great.

According to the researchers, half-shekel coins (which had an average weight of 7 grams) were also used to pay the “half-shekel” tax to the Temple, contributed annually by every Jewish adult male to help cover the costs of worship.

Dr. Farhi explained, “Until the revolt, it was customary to pay the half-shekel tax using good-quality silver coins minted in Tyre in Lebanon, known as ‘Tyrean shekels’ or ‘Tyrean half-shekels.’ These coins held the image of Herakles-Melqart, the principal deity of Tyre, and on the reverse they featured an eagle surrounded by a Greek inscription, ‘Tyre the holy and city of refuge.’ Thus, the silver coins produced by the rebels were intended to also serve as a replacement for the Tyrean coins, by using more appropriate inscriptions and replacing images (forbidden by the Second Commandment) with symbols. The silver coins from the Great Revolt were the first and the last in ancient times to bear the title ‘shekel.’ The next time this name was used was in 1980, on Israeli Shekel coins produced by the Bank of Israel.”

The precious silver coins are thought to have been minted inside the Temple complex, according to a Monday statement from the Armstrong Institute.

[reasonsforhope]

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has galvanized Ukrainian society in many unexpected ways, but perhaps one of the most remarkable is how it has advanced the rights of LGBTQ people.

On Tuesday, in a move that would have been nearly unthinkable a year ago, a Ukrainian lawmaker introduced legislation in the country’s parliament that would give partnership rights to same-sex couples. This legislation, along with a prohibition against anti-LGBTQ hate speech abruptly adopted in December, reflects a sharp rejection of Russia’s effort to weaponize homophobia in support of its invasion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said repeatedly that he attacked Ukraine last year partly to protect “traditional values” against the West’s “false values” that are “contrary to human nature” — code for LGBTQ people. Perhaps he hoped this would rally conservative Ukrainians to Russia’s side — it’s a tactic Kremlin allies have tried repeatedly over the past decade. But this time, it instead appears to be convincing a growing number of Ukrainians to support equality and reject the values Putin espouses.

--

Recent History

I could not have imagined the LGBTQ movement building such momentum when I first visited Ukraine as a reporter in 2013. Ukraine was then on the verge of consummating its long-negotiated “association agreement” with the European Union, a step Russian President Vladimir Putin bitterly opposed. As the deadline to sign the agreement approached, an oligarch close to Putin funded a campaign with billboards reading, “Association with EU means same-sex marriage.” Anti-EU protesters dubbed the EU “Gayropa.”

This effort failed to dissuade Ukrainians from a European path...

But the past decade has also seen Ukrainians standing firm in their commitment to democracy, and a growing understanding that this includes protections for fundamental rights.

There was an explosion of organizing by LGBTQ people in the years that followed the Revolution of Dignity, and some slow advances were made. But it’s been the stories of queer Ukrainians fighting and dying in the war with Russia that have truly helped other Ukrainians to see them as full citizens.

Pictured: Territorial Defense member Romanova shows a unicorn insignia, a mythical creature that has become a symbol of the LGBTQ community. This patch, which depicts a "valiant" unicorn breathing fire, has become the unofficial symbol of Ukraine's LGBTQ+ military.

Today

Ukraine’s current LGBTQ rights debate is unprecedented; never before has a country under siege had such visibly out soldiers who have so few formal rights under their own country’s laws. LGBTQ rights supporters have successfully framed the question on same-sex partnership as whether Ukraine will recognize LGBTQ people as equal citizens, which has become the norm throughout much of the European Union, as well as North and South America. They are successfully flipping the proposition that, as one Ukrainian politician once infamously put it, that “a gay cannot be a patriot.” ...

“I actually think that the Russians did a good job in terms of raising awareness and changing attitudes towards the LGBT community in Ukraine,” Sovsun told me in an interview. “The more Russia insists on [homophobia] being a part of their state policy, the more rejection of this policy [there] is from inside Ukraine.”

The aspiration of many Ukrainians to join the European Union has also helped move more Ukrainians to become supportive of queer peoples’ rights, as Ukraine attempts to define itself as a European democracy in contrast to Russian autocracy. A study conducted last May by the Ukrainian LGBTQ organization “Nash Svit” and the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found nearly 64 percent of Ukrainians said queer people should have equal rights. Even among respondents who said they had a “negative” view of LGBTQ people, nearly half said they still supported equal rights.

The current push for same-sex partnership rights began with a school teacher from Zaporizhzha named Anastasia Andriivna Sovenko. In June, Sovenko registered a petition with Ukraine’s government demanding same-sex couples be granted partnership rights. It said simply, “At this time, every day can be the last. Let people of the same sex get the opportunity to start a family and have an official document to prove it. They need the same rights as traditional couples.”

Sovenko said she was inspired to file the petition after reading a story about different-sex couples getting married before one partner went off to war. It felt unfair to her that queer people couldn’t take the same step to protect their rights. Signatures quickly poured in, stunning even Sovenko herself...

Under Ukrainian law, the president is required to formally respond to any petition that gets 25,000 signatures, and the partnership petition quickly cleared that threshold. But in a sign that the politics of the issue remains complicated, Zelenskyy ruled out full marriage rights in his response, arguing that this required a constitutional change that could not be carried out under the rules of martial law. Instead, [Zelensky] punted to the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, to examine the creation of civil unions. His language implied support, but he stopped short of using presidential powers to make it a reality.

“Every citizen is an inseparable part of civil society, he is entitled to all the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said in the referral."

-via Politico, 3/7/23

Notes:

While the fight is still ongoing, I can't underlie enough how massive this shift in public opinion is. Russia and Ukraine have generally been incredibly unsafe places to be LGBTQ, including in very recent history. This is huge, and it sounds like it will only get bigger.

This could also help bring about a wider sea change throughout Eastern Europe, which in general has a very pervasive culture of homophobia, often tied in with both religious conservatism and ethno-nationalistic conflict, though thankfully things have been improving significantly over the last decade.

[divinely-ruled]

( pass over the mic yap session about society !! )

"Patriarchy is the reason for social inequality."

While the patriarchy might still have a few creases of truth left, the real engine behind societal inequality isn't a bunch of men in charge—it's a lot more shady and, let's face it, boring: it's the oligarchy.

When we talk about the "patriarchy," we tend to imagine a monolithic group of misogynistic, power-hungry men in suits. Men as a class—straight, cis, white, etc—dominate all sectors, and that's it. But power doesn't work that way. Sure, there are wealthy men who dominate certain spaces—politics, business, tech—but these men aren't the representative of all men, nor are they acting in the interest of all men. They are acting in the interest of the ultra-wealthy, the ones who sit at the very tip-top of society's pyramid, and those are not just men. In fact, if you look closely at the historical and contemporary case studies of power structures, you'll notice something incredibly telling: power, in its most concentrated form, is an affair of the ultra-wealthy, not necessarily an affair of gender. Enter the oligarchy, which is a much more fitting lens for the problem. Case Study 1: The Koch Brothers Take the Koch Brothers, Charles and David (until the latter's death in 2019), for instance. These men didn't just "rule" the world because they were men. They ruled because they controlled one of the largest privately-owned conglomerate in the world, Koch Industries, a company with tentacles in everything from oil to chemicals to paper products. The wealth they racked up let them pull strings in politics and policy in ways that made even the most experienced political operatives look like amateurs. If the Kochs were "patriarchal" in the traditional sense, they would have focused exclusively on men—on their male-dominated industries, on their male-dominated networks. Yet, while they funded an impressive army of conservative men in politics (Mitch McConnell, anyone?), they didn't stop there. They worked with women like Elisabeth Koch, who ran Koch Industries' charitable foundation, and even had business partnerships with women in powerful circles. This wasn't a "patriarchy" running amok—it was a network of the ultra-wealthy. Now, take a look at Silicon Valley, where the oligarchic nature of power is even more evident. Sure, Mark Zuckerberg is a male figurehead, but the power dynamics in Silicon Valley aren’t driven by “patriarchal” social norms; they’re driven by capital accumulation and networking. Consider Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook—she’s the one who helped Zuckerberg steer the ship toward global dominance. Women have a seat at the table in these worlds, but they’re not there because of some rosy idea of gender equality—they’re there because they’ve helped build the wealth and power structures of tech. Zuckerberg, Sandberg, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos are all billionaires, but their real power isn't in any antiquated “patriarchal” system; it's in the economic oligarchy they’ve built by cornering the global digital and industrial markets. It’s not just about being a man—it’s about who holds the financial leverage. So, Where Does Patriarchy Fit In? While there’s definitely a gendered element to many power structures, particularly in traditional or conservative sectors (think: government, military, religious institutions), focusing on patriarchy as the only villain is a bit like blaming the smoke for the fire. Yes, patriarchal attitudes persist in these spaces, but what enables them to persist is the wealth and resources behind them. It’s not just that “men” are in charge—it’s that wealthy men (and women) control the mechanisms by which these institutions remain powerful.

Example: The Wage Gap and Gendered Work

The gender pay gap is real, and the systemic nature of it is undeniable. But the gap exists not because men are inherently paid more (though they are), but because the industries where women are overrepresented—like education, healthcare, and social services—are some of the least profitable and least powerful. Capital is the determining factor in this imbalance. If women ran multinational corporations or controlled the wealth of an empire like Jeff Bezos, we’d see a very different economic landscape.

In short, the “patriarchy” is often just a useful stand-in for the larger, more insidious system of wealth accumulation that keeps everyone in line—regardless of gender. The Oligarchy's Grand Blueprint: The System isn't Broken; It's Rigged The oligarchic system is designed to keep the power in the hands of a few, regardless of gender, race, or any other factor. Whether it's men or women at the top, the result is the same: an elite group controls the resources, the policies, and, ultimately, the lives of the rest of us. This isn’t about gender discrimination at its heart—it’s about class and economic power. The Great Oligarchy of Today

Think of your average billionaire—whether Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Warren Buffet—and you realize they aren’t running the show because of some gendered “patriarchy” thing. They’re running the show because they own everything. From real estate to tech to media outlets, they have investments in nearly every sector imaginable. Musk isn’t just controlling a space company; he’s controlling public discourse, through his influence on social media, on climate policy, and even on the future of transportation.

These figures don’t care much for the “patriarchy”; they care about maintaining an oligarchic system that protects their power. It’s class, baby. It’s always been class.

My Final Conclusion: The Patriarchy Is a Camouflaged Oligarchy

The real power dynamics are much more complex and, dare I say, far more boring. The issue is less about men vs. women and more about wealthy people vs. the rest of us. It’s about a global oligarchy where a few select individuals and families hold all the cards. They don’t just sit at the table; they own the table, the chairs, and the building it’s in. Gender is an incidental thing in the much larger structure of capitalism, where the rich are the ones with the most power—patriarchal or not.

In conclusion: the patriarchy is alive and well, but it’s not exactly the cause of our woes. It’s the oligarchy—where the 1% (and often the .0001%) run the show, gender be damned. It’s about class, wealth, and who owns the whole thing—and that is a much bigger problem than anything a few men could ever engineer alone.

Alright, first off, let’s not pretend the patriarchy doesn’t exist—it does. But here’s the thing: it’s not just a patriarchy; it’s a patriarchy built on class. And the ones at the top? They don’t give a rat’s ass about you, me, or even the fact they’re men. Power doesn’t have a gender—it has a price tag. Look at Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg—all those guys aren’t at the top because they have dicks. They’re there because they own everything that matters. They don’t need to be part of some “monolithic men’s club” because they’ve got their own private jet club where the real decisions get made.

Now, I’ll give you this: the patriarchy’s a convenient scapegoat. It lets people sit around blaming men as a class while the ultra-wealthy—yes, some of them women—keep rigging the system behind closed doors. Think Sheryl Sandberg or the Walton sisters; they didn’t break the glass ceiling to help women—they did it to climb higher on the pile of money and power. The Koch brothers, Zuckerberg, Sandberg, Musk… they all play the same game, and it’s not gendered. It’s about staying on top while the rest of us drown. The real system at work isn’t about who has a Y chromosome; it’s about who’s got the fattest bank account.

But here’s where I’ll stop you: while the oligarchy is the main engine, you’re lying to yourself if you think the patriarchy doesn’t grease the wheels. You’re telling me a woman born into the same working-class shithole as a man has the same shot? Please. The whole machine runs smoother because of those old-school rules that keep women and minorities just enough in their place to ensure the right kind of competition stays at the top.

So yeah, class is king. But don’t fool yourself into thinking gender doesn’t matter. The patriarchy and the oligarchy aren’t separate—they’re dance partners. And if you want to take them down, you better be ready to cut off both heads of the beast.