#in order to maintain their democratic institutions

[whetstonefires]

Thinking endlessly about how the classical Athenians were like, so, on the one hand, many administrative tasks on which our civic apparatus relies require expertise.

But on the other hand, if we appoint leaders to necessary positions on the basis that they're the ones who are best suited to that work due to knowing all about it, that's putting real power in their hands, for an extended period instead of a safe little increment, which sets up our nice democracy of Every Free Adult Native Male Who Can Afford Armor to collapse very quickly into a narrow oligarchy.

But the fact remains that administration actually is skilled labor, especially on the tens-of-thousands-of-people scale they were dealing with, and also involves situations where it's impractical to run every step of a process through a committee. Not that they really wanted to acknowledge this but they were stuck with it a bit. If nothing else, people have day jobs, they can't always be voting.

But fulltime governators for whom this is their day job have too much power.

And the way they solved this was, most of the institutional memory and expertise and even exercise of force in the name of civic order was invested in slaves.

Mint workers? Executive accountancy clerks? Cops? All state property.

Very Important Job of distinguishing counterfeit coinage: public slave. Fifty lashes if he shirked or fucked up or cheated. Considerable authority in the context of the job. Could live quite a comfortable life. Absolutely no chance of his using this role as a springboard for building a political base and usurping authority, because he didn't have legal status.

This freed the actual executive positions up to be filled by people given one-year terms by lottery who had the authority to make (routine) calls but no personal power associated with the office; they didn't have to know shit to do the job and this kept them interchangeable.

Except generals, apparently. The Athenians were like, okay generals really do have to know what the fuck they're doing or we'll all die, but we can't make military service the defining feature of citizenship, and then put ourselves under the command of a non-citizen.

(Not even because like they couldn't entrust a slave with so much power, although being under threat of a lashing if people don't like your decisions probably isn't great for making strong strategic and tactical calls; it's the cognitive dissonance.)

So they had ten elected generalships, with less term limitation, and it was in fact a good avenue by which to build a political career.

But like, what the fuck huh?

[stillnaomi]

World War III and the Fall of Imperialism

A speech by Booker Ngesa Omole, The National Vice Chairperson of the Communist Party of Kenya

As we gather here at the 7th International Conference of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform, we stand at a critical juncture in our shared struggle against the scourge of imperialism. Today, I want to discuss a stark reality that looms over our world: the inevitability of World War III, driven by the unrelenting aggression of imperialist powers. This war is not a distant possibility but a present danger, rooted in the insatiable greed of monopoly capital.

Imperialism, in its various manifestations, poses an existential threat to the sovereignty of African nations. Initiatives such as AFRICOM serve as instruments of this imperialist agenda, undermining our autonomy and reducing our countries to mere pawns in the geopolitical chess game orchestrated by Western powers. These military strategies are designed not to protect our people but to secure the interests of the imperialist elite.

In Kenya alone, we host three foreign military bases, a glaring testament to the erosion of our sovereignty. These bases are not just symbols of military presence; they represent a direct violation of our independence and dignity. They subjugate our military and intelligence agencies to the whims of U.S. imperialism, turning our institutions into extensions of foreign powers. This scenario is replicated across the continent, where foreign military presence is a common thread in the tapestry of imperialist domination.

The spectre of World War III is already haunting us, as conflicts rage on multiple fronts. In West Asia, the struggle against Zionist aggression is an anti-imperialist, antifascist war. In Eastern Europe, we witness the brutal realities of NATO-backed conflict in Ukraine. And in East Asia, tensions simmer around Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula, echoing the same imperialist ambitions.

Lenin, in his classic work “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism,” eloquently articulated the dynamics of imperialism and its inevitable contradictions. He described how imperialism seeks to escape internal crises through external wars. Today, we observe this in the provocations and military exercises conducted by the United States and its allies, which serve not just as a show of force but as desperate attempts to maintain their declining hegemony.

Yet, amidst this chaos, the anti-imperialist camp is rising, united in its struggle against oppression. Comrades in Russia, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, and various resistance movements across the Global South are not seeking war; they are prepared for a just struggle against imperialist aggression. The unity and operational strength of the anti-imperialist front underscore a powerful truth: we are not alone in this fight.

The reliance of imperialism on proxy wars and economic sanctions reveals its strategic limitations. The imperialist powers fear direct confrontation, knowing the consequences of nuclear escalation. This hesitation will be their downfall. While they aim to exhaust nations like Russia, China, and Iran, we can turn their war of attrition into decisive victories across multiple theatres of conflict. These victories will not only weaken imperialism militarily but will also trigger a political and economic collapse. The fragmentation of NATO, the decline of the U.S. dollar’s hegemony, and the emergence of BRICS and other alternative institutions signal the end of the US imperialist order.

The eventual defeat of US imperialism will pave the way for a new global order defined by national liberation revolutions and the defeat of all neo-colonial projects across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This new order will also see the inevitable resurgence of socialist revolutions and the establishment of people’s democracies. Additionally, there will be a true commitment to peace, independence, and self-determination as guiding principles for global governance.

As we face the challenges of our time, let us reaffirm our commitment to the struggle against imperialism. The victory belongs to the people. The end of imperialism will not only reshape global politics but empower nations to pursue socialism, democracy, and peaceful coexistence.

In conclusion, as we confront the spectre of World War III, let us remember that this is a final confrontation between the forces of imperialism and those of anti-imperialist resistance. Together, we shall emerge victorious, heralding a new era of hope, freedom, and progress for all.

Death to Imperialism!

Long live International Socialism!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Olga Lautman at Substack:

America has entered uncharted waters. With Trump’s victory, a leader who openly disregards democratic norms and embraces authoritarian tactics will soon hold power. This forces us to confront a sobering question: what happens next? Drawing from Russia’s repression under Vladimir Putin, we can anticipate a chilling blueprint for America’s future. If history is any guide, a Russian-style system could quickly take hold, reshaping the nation in ways few could have imagined. I never imagined having to write this about America but here we are.

1. The Erosion of Democratic Institutions

Although Russia, for centuries has been plagued by corruption and repression, Putin's rise to power marked a decisive shift toward consolidating authority and dismantling even the minimal democratic structures that existed. He systematically undermined the judiciary, legislature, and media to entrench his rule, while filling key positions with loyalists—many of whom lacked experience and carried criminal backgrounds. This ensured that every lever of power served his interests rather than the public. A similar playbook will be employed in the U.S., targeting key institutions to erode checks and balances and concentrate power in the hands of a select few.

Judiciary: Judges who stand against the regime will face political attacks, threats, or attempts for outright removal. Loyalists—regardless of qualifications—will be installed to ensure the legal system becomes a tool of the regime, rubber-stamping its priorities and suppressing dissent.

Congress: Opposition voices in the legislature may be neutralized through disinformation campaigns, weaponized investigations, or targeted harassment, creating an institution that offers little resistance to executive overreach.

State Governments: Federal overreach will likely target states that resist centralized authority. This could include withholding funds, filing legal challenges, or deploying federal agencies to strong-arm compliance, undermining state autonomy.

Department of Justice (DOJ): Expect the DOJ to be weaponized to serve regime interests, targeting political opponents with investigations and prosecutions while shielding loyalists from accountability. This shift will transform the DOJ from a guardian of the rule of law into an enforcer of authoritarian priorities and a silencer of dissent.

Military: The armed forces will see an infiltration of loyalists in key leadership positions, prioritizing loyalty over expertise. The regime will co-opt the military for domestic purposes, deploying troops to intimidate or suppress opposition under the guise of maintaining order.

Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies: Federal agencies like the FBI and CIA may be purged of independent leadership and repurposed to surveil, intimidate, and target political adversaries, activists, and journalists while overlooking crimes committed by allies of the regime.

Election Commissions: Agencies responsible for overseeing elections will further be restructured or staffed with loyalists to undermine free and fair elections, introducing more barriers to voting, and attempting to manipulate electoral outcomes.

Through these methods, authoritarian regimes systematically seize control of institutions vital to democracy and try to quell all avenues for effective resistance.

2. Media Suppression and Propaganda

In a Russian-style system, independent media becomes an endangered species. Expect a multifaceted approach to suppressing dissent and controlling the narrative:

Hostile Takeovers: Major media outlets critical of the regime may face buyouts by regime-friendly oligarchs, hostile regulatory scrutiny, or outright closures. These takeovers allow the regime to repurpose once-trusted news sources into tools of propaganda.

Censorship: The flow of information will be tightly controlled. Social media platforms will be pressured to suppress dissenting voices through legislation targeting “disinformation,” often a thinly veiled pretext for stifling criticism. Algorithms will be manipulated to deprioritize independent reporting and amplify regime-friendly content.

State Media Expansion: Regime-funded outlets will flood the airwaves and online spaces with propaganda, often disguised as legitimate news. This will foster a cult of personality around the leader and rewrite inconvenient truths, framing opposition voices as enemies of the people.

Media Self-Censorship: A climate of fear can be just as effective as direct government intervention. Expect the regime to create an environment where media outlets self-censor to avoid legal repercussions or physical harm. Journalists may shy away from covering controversial topics or investigations to protect their staff and avoid punitive measures like fines or asset freezes.

Intimidation of Journalists: Journalists who persist in reporting the truth will face significant personal and professional risks, including:

Harassment and Threats: Online trolling, smear campaigns, and physical intimidation will be carried out to silence reporters.

Surveillance: Journalists will become targets of state surveillance, with private communications intercepted and leaked to discredit or endanger them.

Arrests and Detention: Those who cross the regime’s red lines may face arbitrary detention or charges like espionage or sedition, echoing Russia's imprisonment of investigative journalists.

License Bans and Revocations: The regime may also weaponize licensing and accreditation requirements, threatening or revoking the credentials of outlets that refuse to conform. In Russia, this tactic has driven many independent voices underground or into exile. In the U.S., similar actions could manifest as government agencies tightening broadcast or publishing regulations to target dissenters, while regime-friendly outlets flourish under lenient oversight.

The result is a chilling effect: a public increasingly deprived of accurate, independent information and a society incapable of holding power to account.

[...]

Ways to push back

While the outlook is bleak, resistance is not futile. America’s deep democratic traditions and resilient civil society offer hope, but pushing back will require collective effort and strategic action. Support independent media by subscribing to and amplifying credible outlets that challenge the regime’s narrative. Organize locally to strengthen grassroots networks that resist authoritarian policies and foster community resilience. Strengthen ties with global democratic movements to share strategies and resources. Stay informed, as understanding authoritarian tactics is key to countering them. I’ll be putting out a comprehensive resistance guide very shortly to help navigate this critical fight. Stay tuned.

Olga Lautman wrote a solid column on her Unmasking Russia Substack on how Donald Trump’s dictatorship could very well unfold, like what happened when Viktor Orbán came back to power in 2010 in Hungary.

Trump’s dictatorship plans are a solid reason for blue states to consider secession.

[txttletale]

hi miss healed, could you elaborate what you mean by dictatorship/authoritarian not being useful/meaningful terms? i know they're terms the west likes to tack on its political enemies, but i thought it might be a case of just misuse of terms that can still be useful, rather than outright a problem with the concept itself, so id be interested to understand your opinion. thanks!

so i don't think 'authoritarian' has any useful analytical value because every state is 'authoritarian' -- the only metrics by which one state might be seen as less 'authoritarian' than another are the metrics which privilege liberal democracy and a free market as a meaningful sort of 'freedom', which as a marxist, i don't! every state is an institution for class suppression--in the state and revolution, lenin quotes engels as saying:

[...] it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to holddown its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist.

every state uses violence to perpetuate and legitimize itself. there is no state that would let you march into the capital and declare its dissolution without deploying armed men against you -- every state is authoritarian, it excercises authority, this is a tautological statement about how states maintain their own existence.

and sure, you could then say 'well we can just call all states authoritarian', but i don't think that makes any sense. the criticism of a state 'authoritarian/totalitarian' implies that there is an alternative, a point of comparison against which the state comes short--and i simply don't think it's possible to use 'authoritarian' as a cogent criticism without having such a point of comparison (usually the US or some european liberal democracy) which in turn means buying into liberal & capitalist ideas about 'freedom'.

as for 'dictator', i have a different criticism of that, also stemming from my marxist perspective. basically, i just think it doesn't describe anything useful in terms of political analysis and massively overemphasizes the role of individual psychology and personality. i frequently criticize both anticommunist and 'stalinist' views of stalin by joking that he must have been a very busy man if he singlehandedly ate all the grain or killed all the nazis. which is obviously a glib way of putting it--but my point is that any dictator who has ever 'done anything' could only do it because they could order a government official to do it who in turn could order a department to do it that could in turn mobilize hundreds or thousands of soldiers/construction workers/bureaucrats/etc. in order to make that happen.

sure, the leaders of countries might make decisions, and in some systems an individual leader might have greater leeway than others. but there are always very clear hard limits about what they must do and what they cannot do. i am sure i can say pretty uncontroversially that mohammad bin salman has an extreme level of political control over the economy and government of saudi arabia, but if he woke up tomorrow and said 'good news everyone, we're converting the country to wicca and donating all our oil to iran' then that would not happen and he would be deposed instantly. for a more realistic example, imagine any 'dictator' of your choice saying 'well, it's time to massively defund the military' -- this would be completely fucking impossible without some kind of loyalist paramilitary organization (which then exerts its own forces upon the 'dictator'.)

and of course all that leaves aside the massive extent to which 'dictator' is politically charged. do i think that vladimir putin was democratically elected? obviously not! but i don't think that any US president has been in any meaningful sense 'elected' by anything other than capital either, and two of the last four straightforwardly lost a popular vote even by the standards of liberal democracy! i think that any political system is best analyzed in class terms, in terms of what interests the government serves in terms of class struggle and competition between global capitalists, rather than in terms of individuals or what formal power structures give out the fancy titles

tldr: as a marxist, i think that 'authoritarian' is a useless distinguisher because excercising authority is the sole purpose and function of a state -- 'dictator' is a useless distinguisher because even the most autocratic fiefdom-state is ultimately a class dictatorship first and foremost

[mitigatedchaos]

Regarding Chevron

From what I understand, the new 'Chevron Deference' ruling does not state that congress cannot delegate authority to the executive agencies, it just requires that congress actually delegate that authority.

I don't think it means that congress itself needs to set the ppm lead levels, just that the laws authorizing the agency's actions say they can regulate lead or even just heavy metals, etc.

a - The Moderates

For both parties, we can think of a district's representative as being roughly in the middle of the range of opinion of the party's primary voters in that district, with some natural variation based on individual circumstances and with different districts having different opinions.

That produces a party's extreme representatives, and a party's moderate representatives.

Nerf the filibuster by requiring representatives to actually keep talking the entire time (apparently it used to be this way and isn't anymore?), and peel off some moderates, and you can update federal regulation.

b - Friend-Enemy Politics

The problem I see is from friend-enemy politics.

Under friend-enemy politics, every institution that's roughly aligned with the other guys is "enemy infrastructure" to be captured, looted, or destroyed. Democracy is no longer a decision among family or friends about how to best proceed, but a long-rolling, low-intensity conflict.

In order to peel off moderate Republicans, there have to be moderate Republicans. There can't be moderate Republicans if the Democratic platform is that Republican voters or Republican voting demographics are not "fellow Americans," but the center of an identitarian threat narrative. If any power that's given up will be weaponized, then the appropriate stance is to not give up any power.

c - To Govern

Public investment (provided it is actually investment), social insurance (provided it is actually insurance), and regulation (to reduce externalities, improve information for market actors, or make it easier to make contracts, including by reducing search and legal enforcement costs), are all natural parts of governing. There are reasons for Republican officials to agree to a well-regulated market, with sound infrastructure investments, and for voters to treat them according to whether they can deliver.

That requires separating investment from consumption, insurance from extortion, and good regulation (that's aligned with the interests of the broader country) from bad regulation (for regulation, quality is more important than quantity). (That doesn't mean that you can't do consumption spending - consumption spending is just the sort of thing parties will disagree on after accounting for investment.)

That, in turn, requires a focus on reality and a shift away from managing reputation and 'public relations' as the dominant mode.

d - Compromise

Making the agency behavior more closely bound to the law may actually make it easier for legislators to compromise. Collapsedsquid has made it clear in past posts that he doesn't think this sort of thing is important (in the general sense), but I disagree - legislators and political operatives can actually notice what's going on around them, see expansive interpretations of law being used to justify agency behavior beyond what the law-as-written would be expected to authorize, and then adjust their behavior.

The less binding a deal is on future behavior, the more players have to focus on maintaining or improving their relative power position (more zero-sum) instead of making positive-sum deals.

With that said, I find it difficult to estimate what the effects will be - will the party-aligned constellations actually reduce their level of polarization to respond to an environment where getting policy requires negotiation rather than coordinating to influence executive agencies, or will they follow local and internal incentives as we saw with 2014-2022?

As one Twitter user said, "We've been electing legislators to represent us on cable TV."

I think @centrally-unplanned assumes that knowledge-generation and alignment within the political structure for both the left and right in America is utterly cooked for structural reasons (such as the Internet and economic changes), so they won't come together on truth-oriented policy (especially as that might be rather painful - to pick an uncontroversial example, giving the YIMBYs a win might reduce the de facto retirement savings of many Americans, even as it improves things for the younger generations).

[0atm11k]

New York state’s Fourth Judicial Department has reinstated a controversial policy that empowers the state government to lawfully order people to involuntarily isolate or quarantine in order to prevent the spread of highly contagious diseases.

Originally passed in February 2022, the dramatic expansion of the rights and abilities of the State Health Commissioner, collectively referred to as Rule 2.13, was struck down in July of that same year in the state Supreme Court, following a lawsuit filed by Republican lawmakers Sen. George Borrello, Assemblyman Chris Tague and U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler, who was a member of the Assembly at the time of the filing.

Last Friday, the Fourth Judicial Department repealed that decision, stating that the Republican challengers, who had argued that Rule 2.13 gave undue power to the executive branch and disregarded the authority of the state legislature, had not established how their authority had been negated.

The court’s Democratic Supermajority, in a unanimous vote, ruled that the “Legislature retains its power to address the regulation,” essentially stating that New York legislators still maintain the authority to change the laws which originally empowered the Governor’s office to pass new and stricter public health policies. Furthermore, the Fourth Judical Court wrote “that the legislator petitioners failed to fulfill the injury-in-fact requirement to establish standing” arguing that the state legislators who originally brought the suit did not have the legal standing to do so.

The lower court ruled that Rule 2.13 did not nullify any vote cast by the plaintiffs or strip them of any due authority, thus the challengers had no grounds on which to personally sue.

“Inasmuch as the legislator petitioners merely asserted an alleged harm to the separation of powers shared by the legislative branch as a whole, they failed to establish that they suffered a direct, personal injury beyond an abstract institutional harm,” wrote the court.

Republicans have categorized the Fourth Judical Departments ruling as a technicality, and have vowed to continue challenging the policy.

“The court seems to insinuate that the only person with the right to sue is someone who has been forcibly locked in their home against their will” Bobbie Anne Flower Cox, the attorney representing the petitioners, wrote in a blog post following the lower court’s decision.

Rule 2.13 was fi rst made possible when, during the early days of the Covid 19 Pandemic, the state legislature amended executive law and gave then Governor Andrew Cuomo broad power to suspend laws and issue directives through executive orders.

The new ruling supersedes the conclusion of Supreme Court Justice Ronald Ploetz of Cattaraugus County, who stated Rule 2.13 violates the constitutional requirement for a separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches when establishing actions as severe as involuntary isolation.

With Rule 2.13 reinstated, the State Commissioner of Health now resumes the authority to “whenever appropriate to control the spread of a highly contagious communicable disease, issue and/or direct the local health authority to issue isolation and/or quarantine orders, consistent with due process of law, to all such persons as the State Commissioner of Health shall determine appropriate.”

[thyfleshc0nsumed]

Obviously, the US is a republic etc etc etc and even if it weren't, voter suppression etc etc etc. but I don't even like, believe in democracy as a means of running a society is like, in abstract even a good thing. I think democracy is good in workplaces generally and like I'm sure for other stuff, but like? Idk, why do we presume the interests of a majority bloc are inherently right? Like idk if a purely democratic society voted to institute slavery or something and 60% of the people voted for, should the 40% just sit by and allow the democratic process to happen simply because it was a democratic process? Of course not.

obviously its an extreme example and this is kinda just stream of conscious but idk, I think this obsession with the right of majority is just so silly. Like even within the working class, like in the current ordering of the world, the imperialist nations working class are stratified over the third world working class, we in the first world have some level of medium term material interests in keeping that status even though we are both exploited by the capitalist class. If the US magically poofed into being a direct democracy, should we simply stop fighting because the majority would lack the class consciousness to see the broader picture and would vote to maintain their status above the third world?

[mariacallous]

Last month several women rose to the top echelons of international politics. Kamala Harris emerged as the lead presidential candidate of the U.S. Democratic Party, Ursula von der Leyen was elected to serve a second term as president of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas was appointed foreign policy chief of the European Union (EU), and Rachel Reeves became Britain’s first female chancellor.

And yet feminists, while generally pleased, were not particularly jubilant. Every success counts, they say, particularly if Harris becomes the U.S. president and acquires the most influential political office in the world. But there’s little reason to think that the arrival of a few women in top positions will change how international affairs are conducted in a male-dominated world.

According to the United Nations (U.N.), at the current rate it will take nearly a century and a half to achieve gender equality in the highest positions of power and almost four more decades to achieve gender parity in national legislative bodies. There are simply not enough women in top jobs to give the concerted, collected push needed to implement a feminist foreign policy and usher in the radically different global order that feminist intellectuals desire.

“Often the narrative is that all we need is a woman leader and everything will change, but we know this isn’t true,” said Miriam Mona Mukalazi, a fellow at European University Institute’s Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and a scholar in feminist foreign policy. “They are still in the same system; they can only disrupt it a little; and it also depends on how far they are willing to go [to jeopardize their career in pursuit of a better world].”

Scholars said that whenever women are rulers—from queens to prime ministers—they are expected to act like men and display “strength,” a euphemism for their ability to sanction bloody wars and maintain state borders at all costs.

“Something about foreign and security policy is linked to men and masculinity in a way that female leaders have had to justify whether they were warriors or not,” Ann Towns, professor of political science at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg, told Foreign Policy over the phone. “It’s a significant feature, centered around conflict resolution by violence rather than collaboration and peace.”

A feminist foreign policy, however, prioritizes human security over state security and calls for a radical rethink of the current system. It focuses on eliminating the root causes of conflict, demilitarization, a multilateral approach, and diplomatic interventions.

In conversations with Foreign Policy, many scholars suggested that a step-by-step approach is the only way to move forward and representation of women in top ranks, while a necessary condition, is only a start. They said the idea is to achieve gender parity across the board in public life and push for policy change at home and abroad. Once the current power imbalance has been sufficiently corrected, the practice of international affairs can be fundamentally reworked. Policymakers could even discuss the cons of the nation-state concept.

A decade ago, it seemed some feminist ideas were taking a hold. Sweden was the first to adopt a feminist foreign-policy (FFP) framework in 2014; Canada followed in 2017; France two years later; and then Mexico, Spain, Luxembourg, Germany, and Chile. But all these policies were a work in progress factoring in political realities of the day and did not reflect the goals of FFP as a whole.

Experts said the adopted frameworks lacked vision and ambition. Furthermore, their implementation was made harder by various factors. While it has always been a daunting task to make progress in patriarchal societies and power structures, experts said, an ascendant far-right ideology and political parties further impeded progress. For instance, Sweden’s feminist foreign policy was reversed when a government supported by a far-right party came to power. And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine further strengthened the argument of state security at the expense of pacifist movements that contribute to FFP ideas.

Sweden was the torchbearer. Towns said she witnessed “increased gender mainstreaming” in all government departments and a feminist approach to diplomacy and bilateral trade. “They had to start thinking about foreign trade—what does a FFP look like in trade?” she said. Sweden’s efforts also led to the passing of a resolution in the U.N. Security Council that included sexual and gender-based violence as grounds for sanctions.

On the other hand, Sweden exported arms worth billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia between 2015 and 2021 despite reports that it had ended a deal with Saudi Arabia over the country’s suppression of human rights, according to non-governmental organization Svenska Freds.

According to a 2017 report by CONCORD, a group of 19 civil society organizations, Sweden continued to sell arms to non-democratic countries, including Saudi Arabia in 2016 and 2017 when it was carrying out airstrikes against Yemen.

Towns said she thought the defense industry was too big a beast to take on, even for the government. “That would be challenging both huge companies and their large profits and proponents of national security all at once,” she said. “I think they thought of starting with easier stuff,” such as more representation for women.

Canada emerged as one of the biggest international donors toward female welfare and reproductive health, with an emphasis on gender equality projects between 2021 and 2022. But failings have been exposed: Canada did not show how it chose donation recipients and whether it improved outcomes for women and girls.

In 2023, Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development Svenja Schulze launched the German version of a feminist foreign policy amid much fanfare. They included FFP guidelines for everything from conflict resolution and aid delivery to green policies and directed 85 percent of aid to projects with a gender equality dimension.

“We couldn’t use the ‘F word,’” said Mukalazi, of feminism, until the FFP guidelines were launched. “The conservatives wanted us to call it gender-positive policy, and even the liberals were opposed to the German translation feministische Außenpolitik.”

But the German FFP came in for its fair share of criticism, too. First, it was adopted by two ministries, not the whole government. Second, the chancellor’s position on the policy was unclear, leaving doubt among experts “whether the agenda [would] be implemented at the highest level.”

Barbara Mittelhammer, a Berlin-based analyst of FFP, said Germany’s feminist foreign policy has succeeded in a limited context. “There is a lot of value in more gender programs and instruments and more representation,” she said, “but it’s not a feminist foreign policy in the sense of having a different political priority.”

Feminist scholars contend that German foreign policy has gone in the opposite direction owing to the Russian threat looming over the European continent. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s 2022 Zeitenwende (“turning point”) speech called for an unprecedented investment in Germany’s defense sector, and the country is considering relaunching conscription.

While there is no debate among feminist scholars over ending weapons sales to authoritarian nations, the conversation gets trickier when it turns to territorial integrity or a smaller state being threatened by a bigger, authoritarian nation.

“Its difficult to understand what a feminist foreign policy contributes to understanding the biggest security threat we are facing,’’ said Kristi Raik, deputy director at the International Centre for Defence and Security, an Estonian think tank. Kallas, the new EU foreign policy chief and former Estonian prime minister, is expected to push for feminist policies in her new position while her country faces imminent threat from Russia.

Political guidelines from Von der Leyen’s campaign mention the word “equality” seven times, while “defense” is used on 30 different occasions. Von der Leyen’s focus will also be on defense in the wake of Russian aggression. The guidelines noted that combined EU spending on defense increased by 20 percent from 1999 to 2021; in that same period, Russia’s defense spending increased by almost 300 percent and China’s by almost 600 percent. Von der Leyen wrote that European spending is “too disjointed, disparate and not European enough.”

Harris’s challenges, if she becomes president, would be even more severe. Women and girls not just in the United States but across the world would expect her to improve their lives in a more substantial way than handouts through aid organizations. While experts believe she wouldn’t drastically change U.S. policy, Harris has adopted a feminist tone on several issues including the Israel-Hamas war and women’s rights in Iran. Israel has “a right to defend itself, and how it does so matters,” she said. “We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering. And I will not be silent.”

Harris voiced support for women in Iran during mass protests in 2022 over women’s rights in the country. But Iranians in exile and women’s rights activists expect more. They say she should use her influence to encourage the U.N. to criminalise gender apartheid.

Taghi Rahmani, the husband of imprisoned Iranian activist Narges Mohammadi, said his wife and other activists have called for gender discrimination to be made a criminal offense at an international level. “Ms. Harris can contribute to this issue,” he wrote to Foreign Policy via encrypted communication from Paris.

“I believe that in the broader context of [U.S.] foreign policy and the composition of the Congress, it is unlikely that a Harris administration would apply the feminist label to their foreign policy,” Fonteini Papagioti, deputy director, policy and advocacy, at the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), wrote. “However, I do believe a Harris administration is an opportunity to advance gender equality globally and at home—particularly with regards to sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

Activists say a feminist foreign policy only makes sense if feminist principles are applied at home on domestic policy first. Harris’s first challenge, then, will be to protect women’s rights regarding their own bodies at home in the United States.

[darkmaga-returns]

After their major election loss, Democrats are doubling down on their worldview by trying to save the monstrous deep state they have been building for decades and making sure their own ranks still fall in line with radical social policies.

As President Joe Biden prepares to leave office, he and his party are scrambling to undermine one of President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promises: cull the odious deep state.

Biden is reportedly being pushed by his party to bolster the federal bureaucracy in the waning weeks of his presidency. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., said the Biden administration has already done some “scenario planning,�� as it attempts to “fortify the Justice Department, the intelligence agencies and other offices in Trump’s crosshairs,” according to The Hill.

The Trump transition appears poised to fulfill campaign promises to break apart the intelligence apparatus with the nomination of former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, as director of national intelligence, cut out the far-left rot at the top levels the military by firing activist generals, appoint an attorney general prepared to stop the weaponization of the Department of Justice, and substantially dismantle the federal bureaucracy both with the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency and the appointment of Russ Vought to helm the Office of Management and Budget.

Facing the potential demise of the institutional control the left has maintained for decades, Democrats want Biden to sign a barrage of executive orders in his last days, alter union contracts of federal workers to make them even harder to fire, ram through far-left judges, blow open government funding of projects already approved by Congress before the can be stopped, and finalize federal rulemaking, The Hill reported.

[tamamita]

You've said before that the Islamic Repubic of Iran is controversial within Shi'a Islam because there's not really supposed to be a Shi'a state, or something like that. Do you know what the stance is on historical Shi'a states like the Fatimi Caliphate in Egypt or the Savafid Empire in Iran?

It's important to understand that the Safavid Empire was a monarchy with Twelver Shi'ism as its official religion, while the Fatimid Empire was a Sevener/Ismaili Shi'a caliphate/imamate, so there are various rules to how an Islamic state can be imposed under these conditions.

For Twelvers, we don't have an Imam present at the moment; Twelvers believe he is in occultation (=Gheybah). This led to a debate regarding the establishment of an Islamic government whilst the Imam is in occultation. While the concept is not new, there has been various ideas, thus leading to strong debate within the scholarly institutions in Qum and Najaf. What S.Khomeini introduced was based on a theory, which holds that through a jurist, they can maintain religious, political and social order. This proved to be hignly controversial idea, because many grand Shi'i scholars were opposed to the establishment of an Islamic state, because of the lack of an Infallible Imam, leading to friction within the Twelver community. Indeed, the best example of anti-Iranian sentiment among Shi'a Muslims can be found in Iraq, which has long attempted to push away the growing Iranian influence in their religious and political affairs especially during the post-iraqi war era. In fact, even the greatest of scholars, Ayatollah Sayed Ali al-Sistani (r.a) remains neutral regarding the establishment of an Islamic republic/state and is a supporter of free democratic elections. The Safavid Empire was still a monarchy and couldn't be called an Islamic state in the same sense as the Ottoman Empire was a monarchy, since a real Islamic state can only be imposed by a divinely ordained Imam. I will not get into the Zaidiyya Shi'as (Fivers) as their theology differ significantly from Twelvers and Seveners.

The Ismailiyyas (or later the Tayyibi Ismailiyyas) differed from the Twelvers in the sense that they had a living Imam and was able to overthrow the Abassids in the Maghrebi region, thus being able to establish an Imamate under a divinely ordained system. However, this Imamate was shortlived as intra-religious feuds occured regarding the successorship of various caliphs, causing the Fatimid to weaken. The Ayyubid general Salah ad-deen took this as an opportunity and overthrew the Ismailiyya Fatimids. There are two remaining sub-branches of Ismaili Shi'ism, the Musta'alis and the Nizaris. While the Musta'alis do not have an Imam at present (the Da'is being their representatives instead), the Nizaris have a living Imam.

[qqueenofhades]

Was Obama anti gay marriage and anti illegal immigration? A genuine question, I don't know, I am not from the USA.

No, he was never "anti" either of those things. He simply didn't talk about them much, especially in his first campaign, because a) the Great Recession was happening and the only thing everyone cared about was the economy, b) in 2008 we were still seven years from SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage nationwide and it was very much a fringe issue; c) see earlier point about Obama having to paint himself very much as an institutional centrist, a common-sense choice who would not rock the boat or immediately rush for drastic change, in order to coax jittery white middle America into voting for an inexperienced brown guy with a father from Kenya and the middle name Hussein. The Democrats (and American society as a whole) were not yet united around LGBTQ+ issues, and while Obama himself was still undecided on the question of full marriage (though he supported domestic/civil rights, which was often where most people came down at the time), he didn't talk about it.

However, his thinking did evolve, and he certainly wasn't anti-LGBTQ in the same way that, say, Bill Clinton had to be in the 90s with Don't Ask Don't Tell (aka the policy that prohibited LGBTQ people from serving openly in the US military) -- indeed, his administration repealed it in 2010, which was a BIG deal at the time. Also in I want to say 2012, Biden (as vice president) went on TV and affirmed his full support for gay marriage, before either Obama or the White House had officially done so. This pushed him to come out and say that he also supported it (people now often forget that Biden was the first to do it, especially when they want to insist he's anti-LGBTQ), and the SCOTUS decision in 2015 legalizing nationwide marriage equality (ah, the good ol' days when SCOTUS was actually doing things like that!) was fully welcomed and embraced by the White House.

As for immigration, Obama did try to reform it, with.... varying levels of success, and mostly tried to stay away from major or controversial changes. This was also because all his energy was focused (in his first term) on bailing out the economy and passing the Affordable Care Act, and after that, he lost the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, limiting what he could do for much of his second term. However, people also forget that Obama was the one who started DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, also known as Dreamers) in 2012, allowing for many undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the US as children to stay and earn a lawful path to citizenship. He also tried to expand it and maintain it in more states, even as the Republicans fiercely fought to get it shut down (and managed to temporarily block it in SCOTUS in 2016; it's still under review/up in the air as to its legal fate/expansion/effectiveness). So yeah, he wasn't "anti" either of those things.

[uboat53]

I think it's very telling that in order to maintain your stance as an American liberal, you have to adopt a very nihilistic perception of what's possible. I asked that question about what would cause you to break with the dems because I knew you would claim that there is a line, but then provide a million caveats and get-out clauses that reveal that really the answer is, no, there is no action the dems could take that you won't make excuses for. All they have to do is suck air through their teeth and go, "oh but the midterms", "oh but the parliamentarian", and you'll immediately fall in line. "I'm sorry for expecting anything good sir, I'll repent immediately." I also just straight-up don't recognize your appraisal of Joe Biden's administration. Your pig-headed determination to see him as a step in the right direction would be unconvincing at the best of times, but when the one thing he's actually stuck his neck out for is giving Israel everything they want, setting no limits on their genocide, it becomes obscene. I get that Americans like to pretend other countries don't exist, and treat foreign policy catastrophes like a force of nature, but not being in that bubble myself I have to bring to your attention the elephant in the room and ask for your response. If a party I supported gave me '80% of what I want' (side note: this is 80% of what you want? you've been very well trained, setting the bar of expectations so low.) but then they also gave unconditional support to a genocide overseas I would break with that party.

Hah! I was wondering if it was a genuine question as posed or if it was concern trolling. I was leaning toward concern trolling given that you were didn't attach your name to the ask, looks like my instincts are still pretty decent in that regard. Still, it was a good exercise in any case.

Look, if you genuinely can't find anything redeeming about the Democratic Party, then fair enough, I just disagree. Don't get me wrong, I still have issues with their actions with regard to Gaza (among many others), but what has "punishing" them gotten us? It certainly hasn't made much of a difference in terms of American policy toward Gaza or, to the extent it has, it has made it worse.

In the meantime, we're going to spend the next four years watching increasing crackdowns on immigrants, both legal and illegal, crackdowns on gay and trans people, the abandonment of Ukraine, and the defanging of civil rights institutions in the federal government among many, many other things. I can safely predict that because those are exactly the kind of things that happened the last time we "punished" Democrats in 2016; we certainly didn't see an improvement on any issues that the left was annoyed with Democrats about, but we definitely saw a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court majority that removed the national right to an abortion and is poised to fundamentally remove major protections for other individuals.

I mean, sure you can argue that those things would have happened even if we'd all voted to put Democrats in power, but you're going to need to explain how Democrats would accomplish outcomes that literally no Democrat supports. Meanwhile, the Democrats we "punished" are perfectly fine. Maybe their pride is hurt a bit, but Hillary Clinton seems to be financially secure and enjoying grandparenthood and I doubt Biden or Harris will be any different. The people who genuinely suffer when we "punish the Democrats" are the people affected by the kinds of bigoted policies that Republicans put in place when they have power.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has, in fact, moved substantially to the left since I was old enough to vote 20 years ago on just about every issue I can think of and is still doing so, but that hasn't happened because leftists "punished" them from outside; it's happened because young people and minorities have joined the party and worked inside it to get it to represent their ideas and values. AOC has done thousands of times more to change the direction of politics in this country than Jill Stein has.

Ultimately, as far as I can tell, the difference between those who are "liberal" and those who are "left" is that the left would prefer allowing others to come to harm as long as they can convince themselves that they took no active part in it while liberals would prefer to take action that causes the minimum of harm, even if it means accepting some outcomes they disagree with.

There are fair arguments in favor of either, but I'll admit I find the liberal position far more persuasive given my experience, not least of which because the 2016 and 2024 elections have shown that "punishing the Democrats" for the things we disagree with not only fail to fix the things we disagreed with because the Republicans are as bad or worse on just about every issue where we (or at least I) disagree with Democrats, they cause a whole bunch of other things that we disagree with that the Democrats would not have done.

Ultimately, though, the question has to be "what does punishing or breaking with the Democrats actually accomplish?"

If you've got an answer other than "making things even worse", I'd love to hear it because that's all I've got so far.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Macron’s Intervention

Having postponed his announcement due to the fire that destroyed part of Notre-Dame cathedral on the evening of April 15, President Emmanuel Macron finally presented the results of the National Debate on Thursday, April 25, in a press conference broadcast live on French television.

The government launched this “democratic” political tool three months earlier, on January 15, 2019, to answer the thirst for a more “direct democracy” verbalized by a large part of yellow vest movement—especially through calls for a Citizens’ Initiative Referendum (RIC). Macron’s goal, of course, was to reestablish political stability in France while making as few changes as possible.

In the days preceding the press conference, several elements of his plan were leaked to the press, which diminished the surprise effect that the government aimed to create with this event. But unlike members of the current government, Macron’s supporters, and some corporate journalists, none of us were waiting impatiently for the president’s intervention, nor expecting that anything positive or surprising would come out of this political spectacle.

For more than five months now, yellow vesters have learned the hard way that dialogue with the government is meaningless—the state is prepared to take ever more authoritarian measures in order to maintain its hegemony and preserve the status quo. In the outcome of the “National Debate,” we see again why democracy has not served as a bulwark against fascism, but rather as a means to legitimize state power. Those who control the state are always careful to make sure that while elections, referendums, and discussions can serve to create the impression that the government has a mandate to represent the general population, they never actually threaten the institutions of state power.

[alphaman99]

National Vote Out Incumbents

OVER THE LAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS WE HAVE MADE THE JOURNEY FROM A NATION OF FIERCE INDEPENDENCE TO A NATION OF COMPLETE DEPENDENCE FROM THE VERY INSTITUTION THAT WE CREATED TO SERVE US.

We have done this by listening to slick and polished politicians, who were created with intent and purpose by the legal profession. These politicians have slowly increased their influence in our lives to the point that now fifty eight percent of all elected officials are lawyers. They have led the expansion of the federal footprint with little or no regard to the enumerated powers of the constitution in regards to the clear and finite limitations of federal bureaucracy.

They have done this with cunning, deceit and more importantly they have succeeded because of the apathy and ignorance of ill informed voters. Our Founding Fathers in many ways and many times warned US that our liberty, freedom and self control and determination of our lives were going to be under constant attack by those whom we may chose to elect unless we kept a tight rein on their activities. They well knew that it is the nature of some to seek authority under the guise of being your “servant” in order to gain power and control for themselves while at the same time stealing your God given liberties and freedoms.

They well knew that if the duty or right to educate the people was extended to a governmental body that over time the very minds of the people could be moved from one of strict and fierce independence to one of complete and total dependence. The easiest way to achieve this is through the public education of children. This is why they did not make education a duty of the federal government. If governmental control of public schools were to made it was wholly the right of each sovereign state to do so. They preferred that it be the duty of the parents of their own children. It the duty of parents to instill the character of a free and independent thinking and actions of their children. It is the duty of parents to teach moral living, to instill the virtues of hard work and honesty. It is further their duty to teach the principles of government our nation was founded on. It is the duty of parents to teach their children the duty and necessity of being actively involved in all arenas and aspects of government in order to maintain and preserve the very principles that granted them the freedom to control their destinies.

I have had people argue with me and say this is not so. To them I always ask them how much do they know about the history of all civilized governments in general and then how much do they know about the history of our own Congress, Executive Branch and US Supreme Court. How much do they know about the internal rules that each body operates under. How much do they know about the specific powers, authority and duty each body is constitutionally given. Over ninety eight percent cannot answer them correctly. They have relied on what little they have been taught in school and the bias that comes with that teaching. This as it was in the advancement of communism in Russia and indeed China how full and total control of a nation of people was accomplished. Too many have their heads in the sand. Too many have responded that it couldn’t happen in the good ole USA. Such is the folly of fools.

Too many say it is the device and actions of the Democrats. Well it is the action of a two party system working together and when needed playing the good cop, bad cop role. The history of government as I have personally followed and examined starts with President John F Kennedy to Barack Hussein Obama. President Kennedy was a man appalled by the actions and abuses of the federal government and the way that people of deep pockets where so easily able to buy the favor of congress and many presidents. He was determined to expose it and change the course of our nation and sadly he was assassinated before he had the chance. President Reagan was able to slow the progress to a degree, but he was unable to usher in a reversal of the trend. The Bush’s, Clinton and Obama did their duty in the progression of greater governmental control at the federal level. Enter in Barack Obama and his enormous ego. He determined that it was his duty to complete the transition of our nation from a representative republic to one of a centralized socialistic control of ALL halls of government.

The common thread to this control has come from the third “co-equal” branch of government, the Supreme Court. They in concert with the unhealthy number of lawyers elected and appointed to offices of government have co-opted an unequal power and control over this nation. They have over time systematically forced by unconstitutional judicial fiat the very essence of our founding. How did we as a nation go from adding “Under God” in our pledge of allegiance in 1956 to removing God and His Holy Word a short six years later. The Supreme Court did not have the authority to do that under the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment is the constitutional remedy to declare a law from Congress and a sitting president null and void.

Too few know and even fewer understand that the sovereign states created the federal government as a tool to equally serve them in matters of common interest. Let’s put it this way. Let’s look at it as a family unit. The parents, (the states), gave birth, (created ) to three children named Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch. As is natural for siblings they have arguments and disagreements from time to time with each other. Is it not the duty of the parents to step in and mediate these arguments and to sometimes step in and resolve them? How is it that we allowed the sibling Judicial Branch to become the arbiter of disagreements that are clearly and rightfully the duty of the parents (creators). There is nowhere in the constitution that allows a federal interference with the exception of a state choosing on its own to further restrict the rights and duties of the federal government as clearly found in the enumerated powers in OUR Constitution. This means that federal judges have no legal authority to interfere with states rights and laws passed into law in their in their respective jurisdictions. Their laws can only be found unconstitutional by the means afforded in their own Sovereign State Constitutions.

We see them constantly attack and assault the first two Amendments in the Bill of Rights. If we ever as a nation completely surrender one, the other or both our liberty will have been self forfeited.

Until law abiding patriotic Americans stand up and step out requiring ALL halls of government to function and serve the people within their limited scope of power and authority all freedom is at risk and our nation will succumb to the same failures of all great nations before US. The sad thing is we had and still can have an unique form of government that truly can function as designed. By the people, we with God’s divine providence. For the people, meaning governance that serves to protect the liberty of each citizen to make as much or as little as they are satisfied with in life. From the people, meaning that we fully exercise our duty as a citizen in protecting the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in a legal and moral manner from being infringed by the body of our government.. ~MLB~

[eaglesnick]

“Aristocracy is always cruel.” - Wendell Phillips

Providing you are old enough you will remember the financial crash of 2008, and even if you are not, we are all suffering from its catastrophic economic fallout to this day.

The Tory Party, never slow to miss a chance for blaming others, spread the lie, and continues to spread the lie, that the Labour government of the day was responsible for the economic collapse in this country. Regardless of what the Conservative Party may say, it wasn’t the Labour Party that ruined the economy it was greedy bankers. In fact, it was Prime Minister Gordon Brown who played a pivotal role in SAVING the financial sector from total collapse.

“The weekend Gordon Brown saved the banks from the abyss."  ( Guardian: 21/02/10)

and

 “Paul Krugman, an American professor, has been awarded the Nobel prize for economics - hours after writing that Gordon Brown might have saved the world financial system."  (The Telegraph: 13/10/2008)

Originating in the United States, the 2007-2008 financial crisis came about when the US housing market collapsed. Predatory lending by financial institutions, and excessive risk taking in the pursuit of easy money, resulted in the collapse of the financial sector. In short, old-fashioned greed by the already rich led to the near meltdown of economies across the world.

Spreading the lie that it was the Labour Party who had caused the economy to collapse the Tory Party and Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government and immediately imposed a policy of austerity on the country wrongly claiming it was the only way to grow the economy. This has proved disastrous for ordinary working families, in particular the poor.

“On a more human level, many negative social trends seem to be linked to austerity politics. Rough sleeping has more than doubled since 2010, while the number of homeless families have risen by more than 60 per cent. The numbers using food banks have spiralled, from around 41,000 in 2010 to over one million by 2016-17. Such developments appear to be linked to various significant reforms affecting the welfare system, and in particular controversial new policies launched since 2010, such as Universal Credit and the ‘Bedroom Tax’. (Sage Journals: 05/03/19)     

Writing in the Guardian, Polly Toynbee asks this question of posh-boy David Cameron and his pal George Osborne:

“After promising that we were “all in it together", why did his axe fall on the weakest, poorest and sickest people, and on children, leaving his middle England voters unscathed?  (04/02/21)

I would answer that this is what Conservative governments ALWAYS do and Rishi Sunak’s Tory administration is no different.  Jeremy Hunt is rumoured to be contemplating cutting welfare payments to poor and sick to fund the reduction of inheritance tax paid by the rich.

“Welfare cuts worth billions planned by ministers. (BBC News: 13/11/23)

and

“The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said abolishing inheritance tax would cost an estimated £7bn a year, half of the benefit of which would be enjoyed by people inheriting estates worth £2.1m or more.”  (Yahoo News: 17/11/23)

It’s reassuring to know that millionaire, posh-buy Hunt, –related to the Royal Family, Head of School at Charterhouse and then onto Oxford where David Cameron and Boris Johnson were his contemporaries – is keeping up the English tradition of the ruling class maintaining their wealth and riches at the expense of the poor.

Although rarely included in today’s Anglican services and hymn singing, this verse from ‘All Things Bright And Beautiful’ (which was sung in English schools in the 1950’s and 1960’s) says it all. Following the chorus

“All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small,, All things wise and wonderful, The Lord God made them all.”

we have this verse:

“The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high or lowly, And ordered their estate.”

Although this particular verse is largely omitted when sung today, its sentiment hasn’t. Our posh-boy Tory leaders still see their positions of power and wealth as “God given” and when sacrifice is needed to maintain their wealth and privilege it is the “poor man at his gate” who ALWAYS pays the price.

[transmutationisms]

[tithes into the Vagueing Op-Eds Jar] the reason conservatives perceive journalists as having 'more freedom of speech' than academics is because by the nature of their specific position in the public sphere, the censorious pressures exerted on journalists more overtly align them with dominant political and ideological values, for instance via the close relationships they must maintain with government sources, who will stop feeding them quotes if their coverage is perceived as unfavourable. additionally, academics do actually face significant censorship from the right, for instance via smear campaigns and withholding of tenure-track appointments in cases where they are perceived as too left-leaning, precisely because the academy is a reactionary, conservative institution with vested financial interests in maintaining and deepening class barriers. fundamentally no discussion of free speech is worth shit until we recognise that the biggest threat to your freedom to express yourself in a practical sense is generally not the state or the democratic mob, but your employer, who has direct control over whether you can continue to clothe and feed yourself, and is structurally placed to use this lever in order to stifle your radical political speech.