#electoral bonds news

[rightnewshindi]

Electoral Bond: सुप्रीम कोर्ट बार एसोसिएशन ने की अपने अध्यक्ष की निंदा, कहा, पत्र लिखने के लिए नही किया था अधिकृत

Electoral Bond: सुप्रीम कोर्ट बार एसोसिएशन ने की अपने अध्यक्ष की निंदा, कहा, पत्र लिखने के लिए नही किया था अधिकृत

Supreme Court Bar Association: सुप्रीम कोर्ट बार एसोसिएशन (एससीबीए) ने अपने अध्यक्ष आदिश सी. अग्रवाल द्वारा राष्ट्रपति द्रौपदी मुर्मू को लिखे उनके उस पत्र में व्यक्त विचारों की निंदा की है जिसमें उनसे चुनावी बॉण्ड योजना मामले में शीर्ष अदालत के फैसले पर राष्ट्रपति संदर्भ लेने का आग्रह किया गया है। अग्रवाल के विचारों से खुद को अलग करते हुए बार निकाय की कार्यकारी समिति ने 12 मार्च को जारी अपने…

[nando161mando]

Georgia Democrats trying to block several candidates, including De la Cruz/PSL from ballot

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-democrats-kennedy-jill-stein-presidential-ballot-election

[balajiindiaofficial]

Covidshield वैक्सीन का जबरदस्त खुलासा | जान की कोई कीमत नही | #covid19 #covidvaccine #electoralbond

[news-trust-india]

Electoral Bonds Case में SBI को कल तक देनी होगी जानकारी; SC का आदेश

नई दिल्ली। Electoral Bonds Case : सुप्रीम कोर्ट की पांच न्यायाधीशों की संविधान पीठ ने भारतीय स्टेट बैंक (SBI) की याचिका को खारिज कर दिया है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने SBI से 12 मार्च तक चुनाव आयोग को चुनावी बांड की जानकारी देने को कहा है। इसी के साथ ही सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने चुनाव आयोग को 15 मार्च को शाम 5 बजे तक अपनी आधिकारिक वेबसाइट पर जानकारी पब्लिश करने का निर्देश दिया है। CM in Haldwani : हल्द्वानी में…

[satoshi-mochida]

Metaphor: ReFantazio ‘ATLUS Exclusive’ introduces election candidates, followers - Gematsu

Publisher ATLUS and developer Studio Zero have released the fourth “ATLUS Exclusive” showcase video for Metaphor: ReFantazio, which introduces the candidates vying for the throne and the followers that support the protagonist.

Metaphor: ReFantazio is due out for PlayStation 5, Xbox Series, PlayStation 4, and PC via Steam and Microsoft Store on October 11.

Watch the footage below, including a full transcript.

ATLUS Exclusive 4 Showcase

English

Japanese

Transcript:

■ Introduction

Hello, everyone. I am Katsura Hashino, the director of Metaphor. My representative works include Shin Megami Tensei III, Persona 3, Persona 4, and Persona 5. In the previous showcases, we have introduced you to the story and the world in which the main characters will be competing in the royal tournament.

In this ATLUS Exclusive Metaphor: ReFantazio Character Edition Showcase, we’ll be looking at the campaign in its early stage, introduce the rival candidates and their believers, the fascinating supporters who help the protagonist win the election, and the bonds you will form with these characters. I will introduce them in more depth than what we have done in previous Exclusives

We will continue to introduce new information about Metaphor on the ATLUS YouTube channel, so please be sure to subscribe to our channel. Now, let’s begin the Character Edition Showcase.

■ Synopsis

First, here is a synopsis of the story. On a special mission to save the prince, the protagonist attends the king’s funeral to assassinate the mastermind, the great criminal Louis. Suddenly, the giant face of the supposedly dead king appears in the sky over the Royal Capital, and the “election magic” is triggered. “Whoever can win the most support from the people by the deadline will be the next king.” Thus began an unprecedented uprising for the throne, allowing the citizens to be a candidate to become the next king.

Gathering popular support is not an easy task for regular citizens who have no electoral experience. That is when Sanctifex Forden of the Sanctus Church, a leading figure in the country, declares the “Tournament for the Throne” as an opportunity for people to put their powers on display and gather support. In this “Tournament for the Throne,” those who have put themselves forward as candidates for king are tasked to visit the major cities in the kingdom, proving their worth to the public as they tackle tough challenges. The first destination, Port Brielhaven, will host the “Exhibition of the Brave,” in which candidates compete to see who can bring in the biggest monster head. Those who make it through will head to Altabury Heights to take on the next challenge.

It is Batlin, a Sanctus crier, who is responsible for informing the public about the Tournament for the Throne, which has become a truly national event. His lighthearted play-by-play keeps the public engaged in the tournament.

■ Candidates Vying for the Throne

Now, in this national election campaign, candidates with various agendas come forward. The two most powerful men leading the tournament from unassailable positions are Forden and the protagonist’s arch-nemesis, Louis.

Forden

Forden is the supreme authority of Sanctism, the state religion of the United Kingdom of Euchronia, and is also the head of the Crown Theocracy, the government ruled with Sanctism at its center. In the turmoil following the sudden death of the previous king, he has garnered wide support from the population, given his position as the leader of the moderate faction.

Louis

Louis, on the other hand, in contrast to the moderate Forden, is an army officer with military prowess who believes in true meritocracy, wielding overwhelming combat and magical skills that enable him to defeat the humans. His policy of valuing skill and rationality over birth or circumstance has garnered tremendous support, especially among radical youths.

Of course, these two are not the only ones who will be competing in the Royal Tournament campaign. Other candidates also put their names forward in the campaign, each with their own quirky platforms.

Gideaux

The first one I would like to introduce is Gideaux. He is Forden’s primary bodyguard, as well as the Captain of the Monk Army, the enforcement arm of the Crown Theocracy. He himself does not intend to be king, but he doesn’t seem to take kindly to the arrival of the “filthy” elda protagonist.

Godell

Next, Godell. Known as “Godell the Black Hound,” he is Louis’ subordinate, but is a rather ambitious man who is running for election on the platform of rising to power. He makes no effort to hide his open hostility, which may eventually become a thorny issue for you.

Milo

One of the oddballs is Milo of the ishkia tribe, who preaches an agenda where those of beauty will strip all the hideous of their titles. Wherever he goes, you’re bound to hear the high-pitched screams of his fans.

Loveless

Next, the third son of a tavern owner, with the slogan of “All you can drink all year round.” Without giving much thought to the future of the kingdom, some might be tempted to agree with Loveless’ pledge, which falls in line with his hedonistic paripus traits.

Rudolf

Rudolf, another bloodthirsty candidate .He pledges to establish a roussainte military dictatorship. His appeal for greater control of the roussainte tribe seems to have attracted the support of those who feel repressed by the rule of moderate clemars.

Lina

Lina, a eugief candidate and the only daughter of the family that runs the Kayden Workshop, is participating to promote the gauntlet runner family business.

Goddard

Goddard, a demolitionist of the rhoag tribe, is a representative of the elderly, with his pledge to give preferential treatment to the old and tax the young.

Roger

Roger, a young man of the clemar tribe, believes in his own righteousness and is pushing forward with his vision of a truly free country with no taxes, no laws, and no religion

Jin

Jin from the nidia tribe is intent on winning no matter what, changing his campaign pledge depending on where he goes and who he needs to please at the moment.

Julian

We also have Julian of the ishkia tribe who is very conscious about pro-animal rights even when it comes to monsters that threaten people.

Edeni

Edeni, an island chief of the mustari tribe, decides to participate in the tournament as a pagan advocate for religious freedom.

And others with various agendas and objectives will appear.

As you can see, the “Tournament for the Throne” has a festive aspect with a truly diverse field of rival candidates. But maybe Gallica is right. If one of these candidates become king, the country will face bigger problems.

The candidates we’ve introduced are all powerful people who have expensive gauntlet runners at their disposal. And I think you will find that there are many who want to represent the tribe they come from and increase their influence. However, some of these rivals are so impacted by the protagonist’s actions down the line that they later become his supporters. I won’t go into detail now, but I hope you will look forward to that as well. Posters highlighting the candidates’ pledges are posted in cities with influential power. You may want to listen to people’s opinions as you walk the streets to see what they think of the candidates’ promises and claims made in speeches.

During the election period, the protagonist’s popularity ranking in the race can be checked by pressing a specific button in the overworld. At the beginning, the protagonist’s support ranking starts in a rather low position, around 8,121st place as you see here. This is not a simulation game where the popularity ranking fluctuates in real time, so it is only a flavor element of the game. But these rankings will change significantly as the campaign progresses.

The protagonist is a nobody at the lowest level in the country. Of course, he is not the kind of person that anyone would expect to be king. You will feel the dynamics of this royal tournament campaign as you watch the ranking gradually change with the results of completing your missions and through your actions towards the people of the city!

■ Followers that Support the Protagonist

Now, while there are rivals in the tournament who stand in the protagonist’s way, there are also encouraging allies who will support your campaign. In the cities that the protagonist will stay at, there are many people with various kinds of problems. By listening to them and helping them, they will become strong supporters of the protagonist.

Of course, the allies who travel with him, such as Strohl and Hulkenberg, are also important supporters of the protagonist. But he will also meet unique supporters on his journey who do not directly participate in battle. The unique feature of interacting with supporters, or followers as we call them in this title, is that you can acquire powerful Archetypes that you can equip and use in battle.

Let us now introduce you to what kinds of followers we have.

Brigitta

First, there is a rhoag follower named Brigitta who owns an ignitor shop in the Royal Capital. She notices that the protagonist is an elda and asks him to take on a quest to test his strength. If you can complete said request and gain her trust, she will be a powerful follower. When she becomes a follower, the protagonist will not only be able to awaken to the Merchant Archetype, which offers more rewards in battle, but he will also be able to make purchases at the ignitor shop in the Royal Capital, which is usually not available to the elda.

Maria

Next is a girl named Maria who lives at the Hushed Honeybee Inn located in the Royal Capital. Separated from her parents and having no friends due to her rhoag and ishkia mixed background, she eagerly awaits the souvenir of stories that the protagonists bring back through encounters they have on their travels. If you can help her feel less lonely, she will also be a powerful follower. The bond with Maria awakens the Healer Archetype, which specializes in healing and purification.

Bardon

Next is Bardon, a roussainte who is the captain of the guard corps in Martira. He is a simple, clumsy, but likeable and earnest man who faces new problems after an incident that happens in his town is solved. By supporting him, he will become a strong follower. Your bond with him awakens the Commander Archetype, which can bend the flow of battles to your will.

Alonzo

Like Bardon, we meet Alonzo in Martira, an elusive and enigmatic young man of the nidia tribe. His smooth talk leads the protagonist to undertake a certain quest. Even though he swings the protagonist around with his words and actions that go back and forth, he ends up being a one-of-a-kind follower. If you can strengthen your bond with him, you will be able to awaken the Faker, that can be used as a trump card to tackle difficult enemies.

Catherina

Last but not least is Catherina, a bounty hunter. She is one of the protagonist’s followers, but she is also a candidate herself who stands up for her tribe—the paripus—which is often looked down upon, with the pledge to make them wealthier. From the bond you form with her, you can awaken the Brawler Archetype, which can deliver decisive blows. While they may be rivals in the campaign together, they do form a strong bond, allowing the protagonist and Catherina to create a unique relationship. We invite you to see for yourself how the competition between the candidates will play out.

Party Members

In addition to the followers introduced here, you can also bond with fellow party members such as Strohl and Hulkenberg, and build a follower relationship with them. Interacting with characters of all ages, tribes, and values, and from different perspectives, will give you a new experience unlike any you have had in previous titles.

Strengthening bonds with followers can lead to the evolution of Archetypes to higher levels and the unlocking of abilities that will give you a strategic advantage. So please be proactive and talk to your followers when you see them in town or in gauntlet runners. You can check the status of your interactions with your followers, as well as the Archetypes and abilities you have acquired through them, at any time in the main menu, which will help you strategize how to use your time during the operation periods.

In addition, the follower characters are also voiced by talented voice actors, which we believe will provide a deeper game experience.

■ Closing

How did you like it? We are pleased to announce that we have released new information on quite a few characters. Was there a character you liked among the unique candidates and followers? Let us know your favorite in the comments.

One of the most exciting aspects of this game system is the fact that the bonding process increases the number of very powerful Archetypes. Thinking about what battles you can fight with the Archetypes you acquire from the followers you meet will play a large role in your strategies. It is up to you, the player, to choose a follower in favor of strategy or choose a follower whose circumstances are of interest to you. It is well worth giving thought to, so I hope you look forward to it.

Up to this point, we have introduced the battle system, the dungeons, the story, and the characters. However, a new and different aspect of Metaphor is the element of enjoying daily activities on your journey. In the next Showcase, I will finally introduce the journey aspect in detail, so please stay tuned.

Once again, Metaphor is scheduled for release this fall on October 11, 2024. Both the physical and digital editions are available for pre-orders, so please pre-order your copy or add it to your wishlist. Along with the standard edition, a Digital Deluxe Edition commemorating the 35th anniversary of the ATLUS brand is also available. You can also get additional pre-order bonuses, so make sure to pre-order today. See you at the next ATLUS Exclusive Showcase! Thank you very much for your time today!

[antoine-roquentin]

This series is shaping up to be about covert attempts by institutional power structures to undermine the health and safety of the international working class. The previous part, Part 4, is here. You can find a cool easter egg by seeing who the magazine in the bottom right image was delivered to.

The above is a dossier compiled by a right wing business intelligence group and purchased by the CIA not long after the events I’m about to share occurred. It is hosted on the CIA’s website for declassified files, the Reading Room. It was prepared by Fulton Lewis III, an outspoken supporter of the Rhodesian government and the son of a Hearst-sponsored anti-communist radio broadcaster, sort of the Tucker Carlson of the 40s and 50s. We don’t have the CIA’s own assessments because those are still classified.

When we last left the crew of the spaceship Ramparts, they were dealing with infiltration, incompetence, hedonism, an inability to secure funding, and the heady addiction of fame. Things were about to get worse as their own interpersonal disputes had come to the fore. Keating had seen his power at the magazine get whittled away as incentives in the form of shares for other backers became necessary. At the time, Hinckle counted among his friends Howard Gossage, an advertising whiz kid who helped popularize Marshall McLuhan and did the Sierra Club's first campaign. He frequently went to Gossage for advice. The two came up with a plan to push Keating into the 1966 Democratic primaries for the 11th district of California (later held by Leo Ryan, a CIA critic killed at Jonestown, and now held by Nancy Pelosi) as a way of reducing his influence on the day to day operations of Ramparts. In the midst of a meeting, they had two staff members slip away and come back with signs that said "Keating for Congress" and "Keating the people's choice".

By the start of 1966, however, the election bug had spread through the offices, both because it allowed Ramparts to make the news it reported on as salacious as possible, and because the Democratic Party had largely denied ballot access to anybody who was anti-Vietnam War. Bob Scheer, the foreign editor, ran in Oakland, and Stanley Sheinbaum, the Michigan State University professor who'd exposed the CIA's role on campus, ran in Santa Barbara. All gained 40-45% of the vote, mainly by cohering those opposed to the war. One thing in particular all three did was bring together the black vote (for instance, Julian Bond, mentioned previously in the series, campaigned for Scheer). Their campaigns were run by a coterie of Ramparts staffers, namely CPUSA member Carl Bloice as well as Berekeley lecturer Peter Collier, and were endorsed by a combination of black and Hollywood luminaries, for instance Dick Gregory, the civil rights activist and stand-up comedian, and Robert Vaughan, Napoleon Solo on the Man from Uncle and both a murderer and a victim on Columbo (see him argue about Vietnam on Firing Line with William Buckley here). Some of the opposition research on the three came directly from CIA files and was given to the establishment candidates by LBJ's press secretary Bill Moyers.

With the elections lost, Ramparts needed a new spin on things to bring back all the anti-electoral politics radicals. Fortunately, in nearby Oakland, a new group had just been founded called the Black Panther Party. Huey Newton and Bobby Seale like to portray their group as their own innovation, two upwardly mobile college kids shooting the shit late at night. The group they'd been part of prior to the BPP, the Maoist Revolutionary Action Movement, described them as "adventurists" for their desire to put theory to practice and finally organize in the community instead of just talking about it. Whatever the case, Newton learned from Robert Williams' Negroes with Guns that California law, influenced by white supremacist vigilanteism, allowed anyone to openly carry a weapon even in the presence of police. He went to Chinatown, bought copies of Mao's Little Red Book for cents, and sold them for dollars in Oakland as part of a course in organized self-defence, then used the money to buy shotguns and M-16s for use by graduates of the course. By February 1967, Ramparts staff writer Eldridge Cleaver had made contact at a speaking event for Malcolm X's widow Betty Shabazz, where the Black Panther Party founders and their cohort were the only ones armed. Cleaver invited them to the Ramparts offices for a sit down.

Remember the bit from the last part about Shabazz' bodyguards? That was Seale, Newton, and Co. Their arrival caused  Hinckle's police buddies to get worried, and they put out an APB and surrounded the building, much to Newton's consternation. Hinckle suggested they go out for a drink, but nobody was buying it. Newton stared down a cop, who undid his holster. Seale put his hand on Newton, who told him off. "Don't hold my hand, brother." Seale released it, because that was his shooting hand. Newton taunted the officer. "You got an itchy trigger finger?... OK, you big, fat, racist pig, draw your gun!" All the Ramparts' staffers who'd come to watch as well as the officers' backup got the hell out of Dodge. Eventually, even the officer backed down. It was the first time the BPP had ever gotten the police to back down. It brought admiration from the entire Ramparts staff, who soon made the magazine the semi-official outlet of the BPP. And it brought Cleaver into their fold. They appointed him spokesman/Minister of Information within weeks. The following is the only news footage from that day shot after the incident, the rest having been lost, with Scheer in the background at one point:

And that wasn't even the most shocking thing going on at Ramparts. This series has previously mentioned the National Student Association as a bunch of debate nerds who essentially trained to have public speaking and organizing on their resume for future employers. The thing about the NSA was, it was a CIA front, and generally suspected as such. In 1947, there was an implosion of student politics' international facing groups. Those who had seen the Soviets fight in the Second World War generally accepted their claims to want world peace on their face, while the groups aligned with the Catholic Church teamed up with disparate right wing WASPs and Jews to fight back. The CIA had taken these students (to note, these were largely men in their late 20s or early 30s, grad rather than undergrad) under their wing and organized them into a front group that could report back on invitational events held in Eastern Europe. In turn, the top echelons of the NSA had to be sworn into legal secrecy as a prerequisite of participation, with the reward being entry into the old boys network of politicians and bureaucrats which virtually guaranteed a job.  

The CIA fucked up. In 1965, the elected president of the NSA was Philip Sherburne. He was sworn into secrecy on the source of funding for their new HQ and general operations, as was normal for the group. But he disliked that they had only one source of funding, and he wanted the NSA to be independent. At the time, the grassroots in the organization who followed international politics and hewed to the left had managed to get some of their membership into power, but they had felt straitjacketed by the CIA's complete control of NSA finances. Many wanted to join in on the anti-war marches. Sherburne and others, spurred on by abrogation of Juan Bosch's regime in the Dominican Republic and the electoral fraud that brought the American-backed opposition to power, worked to find alternative sources of funding. They sent one an NSA man as part of the operation, but he got cold feet and worked with Sherburne to expose it. In response, the CIA had a number of top NSA men declared eligible for the draft in Vietnam. Bureaucratic fights ensued, involving the lives of students in America, Spain, Vietnam, and elsewhere. Finally, Sherburne went above the CIA's head to vice president Hubert Humprhey. In response, the CIA went and cut all of Sherburne's independent lines of funding. Unbenkownst to them, Sherburne had made a relatively radical student named Michael Wood his outside line to donors. He'd told Wood not to approach certain groups because they were backed by "certain government agencies". Wood had surmised that this meant the CIA and gone and picked up the only book out on the Agency: The Invisible Government, by David Wise and Thomas Ross. When he saw that the NSA's funding for 1966 had the same donor groups backed by the CIA, he realized Sherburne had lost and stole the files.

Twice the New York Times had published articles critical of the CIA in some form. In 1965, Texas congressman Wright Patman, initially elected on his support of the Bonus Army and ever a thorn in the establishment's side, had investigated 8 charitable foundations and found them to be CIA cutouts. The NYT had written an article on this as well as replies from the funded orgs (Encounter Magazine and the Congress for Cultural Freedom). In 1966, spurred by Ramparts' articles on MSU, NYT reporter Tom Wicker wrote of the allegations and added details of other botched operations around the world he'd heard from sources over the years. This brought the ire of the agency. In 1961, in response to details of the Bay of Pigs invasion being published in The Nation before it occurred, President Kennedy told his aides to bother him when details showed up in the New York Times because it otherwise did not matter. The CIA had actually worked hard to kill the very same story before the NYT could publish it so by the time the invasion failed, Kennedy apparently exclaimed that he wished more details had been published in the NYT so that the invasion would have been stopped. CIA agent Cord Meyer made the postscript of Part 3 of this series as the handler of much of the CIA's work through cutouts and allied groups like AFL-CIO, especially in in regards to  the effort to influence the media known as Operation Mockingbird. Meyer and his wife, Mary Pinchot, were next door neighbours to the Kennedy's before JFK became president. Pinchot divorced Meyer after their child was killed in a car accident in 1957. She moved in with her brother-in-law, Ben Bradlee, later of Pentagon Papers and Watergate fame and played by Tom Hanks in the Steven Spielberg film The Post. In 1961, James Jesus Angleton, head of counterintelligence at the CIA, tapped her phone and discovered she was in a sexual relationship with JFK, including visits at the White House. When Pinchot was murdered in October 1964 in what was termed a robbery (a black man was arrested but acquitted), a friend of the family heard (he said) about the murder on the radio and phoned Bradlee first and Meyer second. Bradlee went to go find her diary and found Angleton sitting in her house (his garage) reading it. They later destroyed it. After that, Meyer became an alcoholic and compiled an enemies list of the CIA that included the Vice President. He was already fearful of a leak and told his subordinates to go after NSA staff but did not determine who Sherburne had told until his wiretaps of Ramparts phone lines informed him.

Ramparts, of course, knew that they had been tapped and kept phone calls brief. Scheer phoned Judith Coburn of the Village Voice and asked for her discretion. Wanting to break into a field dominated by men, Coburn felt like she was being called by a rock star, but nonetheless found it absurd that Scheer believed his calls to be tapped. She knew the CIA to be involved in assassinations like Lumumba's and thought their dealings with a minor org like the NSA were absurd. Ultimately, she helped by confronting a number of figures on their work. Eventually, a young WASP Harvard undergraduate who was on retainer from Ramparts named Michael Ansara got the call. His blog about it is excellent reading, located here. I quote:

One evening in the cold months of early 1967, my phone rang. A strange voice, obviously from New York asked, “Is this Michael Ansara?”

“Yes.”

“This is Sol Stern from Ramparts. Bob Scheer says you are our man in Boston.”

“Well . . . OK.”

“Listen I need you to do some work for us right away. I cannot tell you what it is about. I am calling you from a phone booth. Will you do it?”

“Well, what kind of work and are you willing to pay me for it?”

“It is research into two Boston based foundations. We will pay you $500.” 500 dollars was a lot of money. I had no idea how to research foundations, but I thought, what the hell. I could really use the money.

“Sure. What exactly do you want me to do?”

“I can’t tell you anything more than to find everything you can on the Sidney & Esther Rabb Foundation and Independence Foundation. They are based in Boston. I will call you in several days. You cannot call me. You cannot tell anyone what you are doing. You cannot mention the name Ramparts. Can I count on you?”

“I guess so. Sure. Yes.”

Ansara knew a much older man, an economist and lawyer who had sway in the Democratic Party named George Sommaripa. Sommaripa suggested Ansara go to a guy he knew at the IRS. Ansara did, and was told that under no circumstances could he have access to the files on two CIA cutout foundations. Chastened, Ansara complained to Sommaripa, who'd gotten the IRS clerk his job. A few days later, Ansara went back. The IRS clerk told him he could have any box he wanted, provided he did not go past the 990 form on the cover. He went past for the first two foundations and found that money came from an anonymous donor and in equal amounts went right out to the NSA. Ultimately, he pulled the files for 110 foundations, every single known group that the CIA used. He would look at the incorporation files for the foundations, see a lawyers' name, and look him up. Every time, the lawyer was an OSS operative during WW2, the predecessor org of the CIA. One of the lawyers had founded a firm with Sommaripa, a man named David Bird. Ansara confronted Bird, and Bird did not even stop to hang up on Ansara before phoning a contact at the CIA.

Left to right: Hinckle, Stern, Scheer.

A major corroboration of the story came from three students in New York who were disgusted by American foreign policy in Latin America. One in particular, Fred Goff, had been sent to the Dominican Republic with Allard Lowenstein (part 3) to observe the election of the pro-American candidate over the anti-American one. Goff had discovered that a man that Lowenstein had said he trusted on the country was actually a CIA agent, Sacha Volman. Another, Michael Locker, had done a paper about the CIA based on the NYT articles. Together, they walked in the doors of the AFL-CIO's American Institute for Free Labor Development and asked directly about the CIA, prompting a crashing sound and the institute's director, Thomas Kahn, planner of the 1963 March on Washington and the long-term romantic partner of Bayard Rustin, to scream at them.

The problem was when it came time to do the story. Sometimes, the researchers were paid by Ramparts. Other times, they received cheques from the Interchurch Center, a strange agency that serves as a front for charitable giving from the Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Methodist, and United Churches in America. James Forman, mentioned in previous parts, once led a picket in favour of reparations from them. Ramparts staff demanded they talk to them by picking up pay phones that would ring at designated times, a dismal failure. Other times, Hinckle, Scheer, and Sol Stern would fly in, book rooms at the Algonquin, and order massive amounts of takeout and booze. 15 to 20 people would be in a hotel room trying to negotiate who would be writing the story by continent, or by year, or by foundation. At one point, Coburn broke into the NSA HQ and unwittingly stole the original deed to their land, where it remained undiscovered in Ramparts' files till the 2010s.

On New Year's Eve, 1966, Lowenstein was hanging out with the new members of the NSA leadership when he informed them that Ramparts was writing about their relationship with the CIA. "The usual sloppy Ramparts piece, lots of flash, little substance," he said. The CIA had known since at least Thanksgiving. A lower level NSA official who'd just been sworn in went to meet with Hinckle and Scheer. The duo, while nonchalantly throwing darts, offered the Ramparts donor list as an incentive to tell all, but he refused. Sherburne attempted to find counsel in a lawyer who'd once opposed the CIA's new Langley HQ on NIMBY grounds. Meyer had threatened the lawyer's brother, working in Bogota with USAID, but the lawyer persisted. Undaunted, Meyer got word to Douglass Cater, the first president of the NSA and now an advisor to LBJ. LBJ bumped it to Lowenstein and the CIA to develop a response, which was to hold a press conference with an article in Henry Luce's (the man, not the monkey) Time Magazine that this was all well known since the 1965 congressional hearings, that the money was not that impressive, that the Soviets had done much more, etc.

This could have killed Ramparts. The IRS was already looking for any sign of foreign influence as an excuse to shut down the magazine. It needed some sort of relationship with the establishment press in a way that would let it gain influence without keeping it from the areas it wanted to report on. At the very same time, both Time and the NYT were reporting on the survival of Ramparts: Keating had attempted a coup and lost a board vote 13-1, with Mitford and other backers providing anonymous quotes that while they disliked the "Animal Farm-ish" nature of the issue, they needed Ramparts to stave off a fascist dictatorship in America. Hinckle followed by setting up an astounding agreement with the New York Times and Washington Post: they would get full access to Ramparts' files on the CIA right now, before the White House could set up a press conference, in exchange for letting them run full page ads for days for their next issue.

The day the Times went to press, February 13, 1963, was termed by former CIA director Richard Helms in his memoirs as "one of my darkest days". The press pushed, smelling blood. President Johnson ordered a suspension and review of CIA funding for outside orgs. The CIA initially tried to find a way to blame a dead president, Truman, but realized that its own documentation on the program, written by Cord Meyer, claimed that then-director Allen Dulles did not have any responsibility to inform the president of what he had ordered. Switching tactics, they turned on their press weapon, known as the Mighty Wurlitzer, and claimed that the CIA would have been remiss to not conduct these operations. "I'm glad the CIA is immoral" was the headline of an article by Meyer's boss, Thomas Braden. He described $250 million a year the CIA believed to be spent by the Soviet Union on cultural subversion, to which a mere handful of dollars from the CIA could not compare. No evidence for the accusations was provided, of course. Finally, Helms pulled in a favour from Robert Kennedy and had him testify to the press that his brother had authorized the funding, carried over from the days of Eisenhower. 12 former NSA presidents (including Lowenstein) came out and said the relationship was above board. All had worked for the CIA at least once after they'd left the NSA, but that was not revealed in their letter.

The strategy was a half-success. All the foundations funded by the CIA fell apart and students around the world became suspicious of CIA infiltration. Much of what Ramparts found was investigated by Congress repeatedly over the next decade, culminating in the reforms that came out of the Church Committee, which Helms claimed in his memoirs was sparked by Ramparts and Watergate. Certainly press readership was high, and many stories were published in the NYT and WaPo confirming and furthering the work done. At the same time, the CIA escaped with only a few new rules on its behaviour. President Johnson was a paranoic and was more concerned about using the CIA as a tool against his domestic enemies. He authorized a much larger role for MHCHAOS in punishing his enemies (remember the cryptonyms? MH was the most illegal, as it meant the USA). Many of those fingered were considered liberals in good standing and were part of the labour movement, particularly AFL-CIO higher-ups. They fell in line with the rhetoric about communist subversion because they knew they'd be the ones punished if things went further.

Interestingly, a few months later, the NSA held a vote on integrating an anti-Vietnam War and anti-draft stance into its platform. Traditionally, the CIA had worked from the shadows to suppress these votes. This time, Allard Lowenstein whipped in favour of the anti- stance and it won. Lowenstein soon became a fixture in the anti-LBJ movement, leading the call to bring Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy into the Democratic presidential primaries. To a large extent, the organizations that were closed to the CIA had been products of decades-old relationships and worked in ways that nobody had bothered to improve. Within the CIA, a tension had always existed between bureaucrats with their own fiefdoms and up and comers with new ways of doing things. To a large extent, this scandal simply pushed the former out and made room for the latter, who would not do things like create financial records with the exact same dollar amounts going in and out, or act so bluntly when it came to manipulating staff. While the CIA may have suffered a little in the short term, it was an act of "creative destruction" that improved how the CIA did business. For Ramparts, on the other hand, things were going to get much worse now that they had drawn the ire of the intelligence community. While the magazine reached its peak distribution of 250,000 copies a month, it still did not bring in enough money to cover its expenses, and it was about to be faced with a much larger funding crisis: the Six Day War.

AFTER ALLEN DULLES RETIRED, the director bragged about the NSA operation. “We got everything we wanted. I think what we did was worth every penny. If we turned back the communists and made them milder and easier to live with, it was because we stopped them in certain areas, and the student area was one of them.”... Edward Garvey, who also worked at CIA headquarters, puts it more dramatically: “My God, did we finger people for the Shah?”... Stephen Robbins, despite his limited CIA involvement during his year as president, echoes Garvey’s concern: “It’s South Africa that keeps me up at night.”

[rightnewshindi]

मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त की बड़ी घोषणा, कहा, समय से प्रकाशित करेंगे चुनावी बॉन्ड डाटा

मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त की बड़ी घोषणा, कहा, समय से प्रकाशित करेंगे चुनावी बॉन्ड डाटा

CEC On Electoral Bonds: एसबीआई (SBI) की ओर से चुनावी बॉन्ड (इलेक्टोरल बॉन्ड) की डिटेल मिलने पर मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त राजीव कुमार का पहला रिएक्शन सामने आया है. सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश पर भारतीय स्टेट बैंक (एसबीआई) ने मंगलवार शाम को निर्वाचन आयोग को उन संगठनों का विवरण सौंपा था, जिन्होंने अब समाप्त हो चुके चुनावी बॉन्ड खरीदे थे और राजनीतिक दलों ने उन्हें प्राप्त किया था. मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त ने कहा कि…

[nando161mando]

Take that, Democrat voters!

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A tale of two speeches.

January 8, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

The last forty-eight hours should give hope to everyone seeking to preserve democracy. Why? Because the “commemoration” of January 6 by Trump and MAGA extremists was so vile that decent people everywhere recoiled in disgust and horror. Trump's unhinged “speeches” have become so alarming and brazen that anyone who harbors doubts will soon abandon any notion that supporting Trump is consistent with our constitutional democracy. In a closely divided electorate, Trump's depravity will repel persuadable independents and Republicans.

Of course, Trump did not “commemorate” January 6. He mocked those who defended democracy on January 6 and celebrated those who tried to end it. He called convicted felons serving time for assaulting the Capitol “hostages”—implying that the US government is a “terrorist” organization illegally holding people without due process. He promised to grant pardons to “a large portion” of the January 6 insurrectionists.

He said of the insurrectionists, “Nobody has been treated ever in history so badly as those people . . . in our country.” (Really, Donald? Ask enslaved people and their descendants, Indigenous Americans, women, immigrants from virtually every nation on earth, and LGBTQ people if they agree.)

At the same time, Trump continued his descent into grotesque indecency, madness, and barbarism. He mocked Joe Biden for his stutter and John McCain for physical disabilities caused by injuries inflicted during combat and torture as a prisoner of war. He rambled incoherently about water “dissolving” magnetic bonds. He praised China’s President Xi Jinping as a “brilliant man” for ruling the Chinese people “ruthlessly” with an “iron fist.”

There is more, but you get the point. All the above occurred in forty-eight hours in Iowa. Imagine how much more we will see over the next ten months. He is incapable of restraining himself; his lies will become more fantastic, his delusions grander, his madness more incoherent, his greed more rapacious, and his hate more depraved. All of that will make a difference. It already is. Read on!

The NYTimes Editorial Board issues a warning about Donald Trump.

The New York Times Editorial Board published an editorial on January 7, 2024 warning against a second term of a Trump presidency. See NYTimes Editorial, A Warning About Donald Trump and 2024. (Accessible to all.) I recommend that you read the editorial in its entirety.

The Times Editorial Board writes, in part,

Our purpose at the start of the new year, therefore, is to sound a warning. Mr. Trump does not offer voters anything resembling a normal option of Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, big government or small. He confronts America with a far more fateful choice: between the continuance of the United States as a nation dedicated to “the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” and a man who has proudly shown open disdain for the law and the protections and ideals of the Constitution. [¶] Mr. Trump’s four years in the White House did lasting damage to the presidency and to the nation. He deepened existing divisions among Americans, leaving the country dangerously polarized; he so demeaned public discourse that many Americans have become inured to lies, insults and personal attacks at the highest levels of leadership. His contempt for the rule of law raised concerns about the long-term stability of American democracy, and his absence of a moral compass threatened to corrode the ideals of national service. [¶] Mr. Trump’s forays into foreign affairs remain dangerously misguided and incoherent. [¶] He has announced his intention to abandon Ukraine, leaving it and its neighbors vulnerable to further Russian aggression. [¶¶] Re-electing Mr. Trump would present serious dangers to our Republic and to the world. This is a time not to sit out but instead to re-engage. We appeal to Americans to set aside their political differences, grievances and party affiliations and to contemplate — as families, as parishes, as councils and clubs and as individuals — the real magnitude of the choice they will make in November.

The editorial is well-stated and long overdue. But it is worth reflecting for a moment how extraordinary it is that the nation’s “newspaper of record” would issue a stark and urgent warning against the leading candidate for a major political party. I am not a historian and I haven’t conducted research on the topic, but I doubt that the Times has ever issued a similar warning against a major party candidate.

Read this: On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder.

Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University published a short book seven years ago (before Trump) that contained twenty “lessons” on how to avoid tyranny. The book is wonderful. If you haven’t read it, you should. Purchase “On Tyranny” from an independent bookseller of your choice, here, Bookshop: Buy books online. Support local bookstores, or visit an actual bookstore!

Professor Snyder also publishes a Substack newsletter called “Thinking About . . .” On the third anniversary of January 6, Professor Snyder published a summary of the twenty lessons from his book in a Substack article called, “On Tyranny.” The essay is brilliant, and I urge you to read it. It will provide you with strategies and tools for resisting tyranny and celebrating freedom.

Professor Snyder explains in his article: For those who want democracy and the rule of law in the United States after 2024, I would only add: now is the time to organize, to prepare to win locally and nationally, and to talk not only about what is to be lost but what can be gained. I wrote On Tyranny in a defensive mode; but freedom is something not only to be defended but to be defined and to be celebrated. As for me, I believe that if we can get through the next year, things could get better. Much better. For now, three years after Trump’s attempt to end democracy and the rule of law in the United States, a reminder of the lessons. I recall them now in the hope that I won’t have to do so again a year from now.

Read Professor Snyder’s article. It will lift you up and give you strength. I guarantee it!

We are the majority. Believe it! Act like it!

One of the most pernicious aspects of the unthinking loyalty of Trump's base is that we tend to overestimate the scale of Trump's support. Their stubborn, mindless, vocal support for Trump bewilders us and causes us to assume that it is broader and deeper than it really is. Those who support democracy and oppose Trump represent the strong majority of Americans. We need to believe that fact—and start acting like we believe it!

Jamelle Bouie (of the NYTimes) has addressed the issue of the relative size of the anti-Trump majority in his newsletter article today, Trump Doesn’t Actually Speak for the Silent Majority. (Accessible to all.)

Jamelle Bouie writes, in part,

What’s been lost — or if not lost then obscured — in the constant attention to Trump’s voters, supporters and followers is that the overall American electorate is consistently anti-MAGA. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. The MAGA-fied Republican Party lost the House of Representatives in 2018. Trump lost the White House, and the Republican Party lost the Senate in 2020. In 2022, Trump-like or Trump-lite candidates lost competitive statewide elections in Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Republicans vastly underperformed expectations in the House, winning back the chamber with a razor-thin margin, and Democrats secured governorships in Kansas, Michigan and Wisconsin, among other states. Democrats overperformed again the following year, in Kentucky and Virginia. [¶] Too many commentators have spent too much time fretting over Trump’s voters — and how they might react to the effort to remove the former president from the ballot — and not enough time thinking about the tens of millions of voters who have said, again and again, that they do not want this man or his movement in American politics. Because 2016 was not the only election that mattered. Trump’s voters are not the only ones who count.

It is inevitable that the media and the public will give outsized attention to someone who threatens our safety and security. That is a feature hard-wired into our brains by millions of years of evolution. Our task is to overcome those primal fears and shift our attention away from the threat and focus instead on our strength and the promise of a better world the day we defeat Trump for the third time.

We can do that. We are doing that. We just need to keep it up!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[randomite]

People on Tumblr are always hyping these news articles about some rich wanker out there, buying up single family homes.

It sucks. Rich wankers are terrible yadda-yadda. Not the point of this conversation. (Burn them)

The thing is that you have some of the worst ideas on how to fix the housing crisis!

Simply because most people aren't super educated on why the housing market is this way.

Ironically, and this might tick a lot of you off. One of the causes of the housing crisis is likely you, or your co-workers, parents, siblings ect...ect.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/credit-loans-mortgages/090116/what-do-pension-funds-typically-invest.asp

Are you saving money! (I am!)

Do you have a 401K/Pension/Superannuation? (I Do)

Are you invested in a Real Estate Investment Trust?!

Probably.

Most funds have a little bit of REIT in them. The S&P500 is 2.8% REIT,

These mega trusts own vast amounts of American housing.

https://www.reit.com/research/nareit-research/170-million-americans-own-reit-stocks

Yay. Look at this happy graphic that came from a site really stocked about the great returns on real estate investment.

Now. It should be clear REIT actually own a very small portion of American housing, around 1%. Individual owners make up a far larger portion of the housing market.

REIT live in the happy red space.

The problem with REIT is that they are often terrible.

They are bastions of widespread community gentrification. Sweeping into minority communities like Herongate in Canada and bulldozing the lot. All to make way for shinny condos they can turn a profit on.

https://acorncanada.org/news/leveller-rein-reits-tenants-demand-action-against-real-estate-investment-trusts/

REITs have been accused of slumlord like behaviour. Letting houses decay with mold and refusing repair ect. Ect.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/tenants-lose-as-landlord-transglobe-racks-up-charges-1.1246084

https://doctorow.medium.com/wall-streets-landlord-business-is-turning-every-rental-into-a-slum-b15b81f18612

Essentially my point is....

You could be invested in the very Real Estate Investment Trust that acts as your landlord. You could be invested in the source of your own suffering and gentrification.

The pension investment in REITs for domestic housing is growing. It is too profitable. It is an easy source of growth.

If you are in a bad situation, you should want your pension invested in an REIT. It will help grow your savings (whatever they be). But, that very same REIT might own your home and be the very evil trying to wring cash out of you.

This isn't a call to action. This is more an observation about the neoliberal shit oroborus we are stuck in. You can choose not to invest in REITs, or try and find a good one.

But in doing so, you are worsening the housing crisis. REITs are sophisticated. They use rent increase software and have quantitative analysis of the market used to drive prices up.

If the housing market ever tanks, a good portion of your savings might tank with it.

Now. You might have no savings. You might not have elderly relying on social security. You might be fine.

But. Society is run by trashfire electoralism. If people don't see their investments going up they freak out and vote for the other party.

The pension investment into real estate, allowed in 2001 (thanks Bush), has created people whose retirements and future are dependent on housing prices always going up. Around 51% of Americans are invested in REITs. It is essentially a nightmare that will never be fixed unless people who are smarter than anyone on Tumblr actually put an effort in.

Thanks for reading my depressing rant.

(Also. Sorry if you are in Canada. It is bad in AUS but it seems like REITs can steal newborns over there. Like some articles are like wtf.)

https://www.reit.com/news/blog/market-commentary/reit-allocations-pension-funds-increase

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/us-pension-funds-up-real-estate-exposure-to-offset-rising-risks-71610560

https://www.benefitsandpensionsmonitor.com/investments/alternative-investments/real-estate-has-become-a-cornerstone-asset-class-for-pension-fund-investors/383790

[mariacallous]

Unbeknownst to most Americans, for whom Africa scarcely registers as an afterthought, the United States has a long and deep history of special relations with Ghana.

I am not talking about the story of the Atlantic slave trade, which brought roughly a tenth of its overall traffic, or 1.2 million human beings in chains, to the Americas from the shores of what is now Ghana. The sourcing of bonded labor from Ghana lasted for hundreds of years but peaked in 18th century, when the sacrifice of African lives to brutal plantation work fed an explosion of wealth in the West.

The special relationship in question here involves none of that tragedy, and yet it lays bare cautionary tales for both parties. It began in earnest around 1992, when a new constitution in Ghana established an independent electoral commission—leading to a long period of stable democratic rule.

Since then, the country has conducted a string of highly competitive elections, including repeated nail-biters that have generated far less partisan disturbance about the results than, say, the United States. This has helped turn Ghana into a model to be embraced and upheld by Washington as an example of democracy worthy of emulation by nearby African countries in a neighborhood where democracy, always an up-and-down affair in the region, has suffered numerous setbacks in the past decade.

Over the years, Ghana’s democratic performance has repeatedly won it the favor of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), Western-dominated financial institutions in which the United States holds great sway. To them, it does not seem to have mattered so much that their economic policy advice and various financial support packages have not led to any lasting improvement in Ghana’s prospects as a nation. To acknowledge this would be to recognize the stark inherent weaknesses of their approach to international development.

Just as with elections, the West needs to have Ghana available for display as a good “pupil”—and in some sense, even though Ghana is only a medium-sized country by the standards of the continent, it has become too big, or at least too important, to fail.

More recently, a third plume has been added to Ghana’s cap: security. In the Sahel region, a broad, semi-arid area that lies to Ghana’s north, one weak and unstable landlocked country after another has sharply downgraded its relations with its former colonial power, France. For years, Paris had been helping them fight against the spread of Islamic insurgencies—and failing. In quick succession, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso have all cried “enough!”

Inviting French troops to leave, they have opted instead for a new approach, however uncertain, which consists of strengthening relations between themselves and inviting the help of new partners, Russia foremost among them.

This not only affects France, whose position in the world has long depended on the kind of aggrandizement that it enjoys by being the patron and sometimes master of a large clutch of still-dependent former African colonies. It could also affect Washington’s ability to station sizable drone forces in the region, both to support its own local intelligence operations and to combat Islamist groups without risky on-the-ground troop operations.

This is not all that the ongoing changes in the Sahel affect, though. The removal of Western anti-terrorist operations in the region inevitably leads to a greater reliance on generally richer and more stable coastal states (think Ghana and Ivory Coast in particular) for preventing the growing influence of al Qaeda and Islamic State affiliates.

Here, then, is yet another reason that for the West, Ghana has become too important to fail. If it doesn’t step up to help anchor a U.S. and European security presence in the region, or worse, if it should fall prey to spreading terrorism, then West Africa—a vast region that is home to a fast-growing population of hundreds of millions of people—risks becoming radically destabilized. The potential consequences of this, first for West Africans themselves but also for the West, are dire.

Violence and economic misery in the heavily populated coastal regions of this part of the continent will not only stunt lives and arrest improvements in living standards, but they will also likely spur a much greater wave of migration than hitherto seen in Europe or North America.

Now there is a new complication. Beginning even well before colonial times, Ghanaian culture has been deeply penetrated by that of the West. Up and down the coast, one of the ways this can be most readily seen is in the proliferation of evangelical churches, many of them influenced and supported by American evangelicals.

Recently, this influence has made itself felt through a successful push by the Ghanaian parliament to pass an abhorrent bill criminalizing people who identify as members of the LGBTQ community. In many ways, this mirrors evangelical influence in conservative U.S. states such as Florida, for example, where legislators have passed laws restricting the use of personal pronouns in public schools and prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors, among other measures targeting LGBTQ Floridians. In Ghana, conservative Christian groups were joined in supporting the new law by conservative Muslims and traditional leaders in the country.

Ghana’s outgoing president, Nana Akufo-Addo, has avoided making his intentions clear about whether he will sign the bill, saying that he is awaiting a ruling by the country’s Supreme Court on its legality first. Even without the president’s assent, the parliament can put the law into effect with a two-thirds vote.

The consequences of this could be devastating. The U.S. State Department has expressed its strong disapproval of the bill and warned that its adoption would harm bilateral relations as well as damage Ghana’s economy and international reputation. The World Bank and IMF have also suggested that their aid and loan packages might have to be reconsidered—and European Union countries could react similarly.

LGBTQ rights are as much a domestic political issue in the United States as they are in Ghana, though. Somehow, at some point soon, they could force a reckoning for both countries that their leaders had never imagined and are not prepared to confront.

In the past, most frontal clashes between the international security interests and human rights values of the United States have usually occurred in countries that Washington deems economically or strategically vital (say, Saudi Arabia, for historically restricting the rights of women) or Israel (which the United States has long avoided publicly pressuring over the rights of Palestinians).

But if Ghana begins jailing people for being gay, this would amount to such a clear violation of human rights that the United States could be obliged by law to sever much of its support for the country and would find it much more difficult to avoid doing so.

One must not lose sight of Ghana’s choices in this matter. It is not, as some claim, an issue of simply complying with American values or demands. Civil society groups in Ghana and even the country’s Catholic bishops have denounced the legislation, which one opposition politician, Samia Nkrumah—the daughter of Ghana’s first president—has called a “brutal, harsh, unjust” law. It is unclear how much weight voices like these will carry in the debate.

In a number of African countries, politicians have demagogically promoted the persecution of LGBTQ people on the specious basis that homosexuality was introduced by colonizers (who were, in reality, often the ones who introduced the idea of punishing it). This is a clear fallacy, though, meant to appeal to a bogus form of nativism.

The best reason for Ghana to oppose this law is not foreign pressure at all, even though it could have damaging consequences. The real reason is bound up in the ideals of the continent’s independence movements of seven decades ago: All of Africa’s people are fully-fledged human beings and should be allowed to live in freedom.

[archduchessofnowhere]

Hi! I’m one of your mutuals, but I’m asking this question anonymously because I believe it’s the epitome of dumbnesses 😂 Why the title “in Bavaria” and not “of Bavaria”? This “in” is having me all sorts of confused

Hello! JKSDKFJKGD it's not a dumb question at all! It can be quite confusing, especially because most Sisi biographies just don't explain what the difference is. Or worse, mistranslate the title (this happens almost always in Spanish translations sigh).

I'd be lying if I said that I understand this in detail, but basically the title dates back to the 16th century, however it only started to have relevance after the death of Karl Theodor, Elector of Bavaria, in 1799. Since he had no legitimate children his heir was his first cousin once removed Max Joseph, the future first King of Bavaria. At the time of the elector's death, there were only two surviving branches of the House of Wittelsbach: the Birkenfeld-Zweibrücken, headed by future King Max, and the Birkenfeld-Gelnhausen, headed by Max's distant cousin and also brother-in-law Wilhelm.

So when Max became Elector in 1799 he recognized Wilhelm as the head of the only branch of the family and they agreed that the Wittelsbach lands would be indivisible. As Elector, Max was the Duke of Bavaria (Herzog von Bayern), and since there could be only one Duke of Bavaria at a time, he gave Wilhelm the title of Duke in Bavaria (Herzog in Bayern). Basically what this distinction denotes is that this branch doesn't rule over any territory, they're dukes and duchesses in Bavaria, not of Bavaria. Duke Wilhelm was Duke of Berg for three years until Napoleon gave the duchy to Joachim Murat and that's it, that's the only territory he was ever in charge of. When Wilhelm died he left his only son and heir Pius August no land to rule over.

But no need to get sad about our territory-less side branch: they were loaded. According to historian Martina Winkelhofer, the Dukes in Bavaria actually had more money than the King. This is why King Max thought it would be great to marry one of his daughters to Wilhelm's grandson Max: so the money stayed in the family. Princess Ludovika married down in title, true, but up in fortune.

In the Wikipedia article of the Dukes in Bavaria it says that King Max gave them the title of Royal Highnesses after 1799, which isn't correct. The agreement was that they would receive the title after Duke Max and Ludovika's wedding. But when they married King Max had already died and the new king, Ludovika's half-brother Ludwig backed down and just… not gave him the title (the reason seems to be that Ludwig just freaking hated his brother-in-law lol). Duke Max and his children only became Royal Highnesses in 1845, when Elisabeth was already eight-years-old.

So Elisabeth's position when she became empress was special, because her title itself was special. On the one hand it was a minor title that basically meant "these guys don't rule anywhere", on the other hand the title also meant that they were closely related to the royal branch. She wasn't a nobody: she was the granddaughter, niece, and cousin of the king of Bavaria, and she grew up in close contact with her royal relatives. But the position of her family was special: they had no territory to rule over, and because Duke Max retired from the Munich society to live a bohemian life, his family had nothing to do on an official level.

In a way, Elisabeth's situation reminds me a bit to her Leuchtenberg cousins, who were also in a limbo of "we are from the ancient house of Wittelsbach but our dad's title is weird and technically doesn't mean anything" (though Elisabeth and her siblings' position was far more stable and secure than their Beauharnais cousins). Ludovika and her sister Auguste in fact were close despite their twenty-years age gap, so I wonder if "our children are royalty but in a strange way" was one of the things they bonded over.

To finish this ask, a trivia: the dukes in Bavaria branch became extinct in 1973, and today's living Wittelsbachs all descend from the royal branch. The last Duke in Bavaria was Ludwig Wilhelm, son of Karl Theodor "Gackl", Elisabeth's favorite brother. He had no children so in 1965 he adopted his grand-nephew Max Emanuel (grandson of his sister Duchess Marie Gabrielle in Bavaria and Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria), who uses the title of Duke in Bavaria as his last name ever since.

I hope you find my answer helpful (and that I didn't confuse more)!