#private funding for ngo

[vakilkarosblog]

Who is eligible for CSR funding?

Introduction: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a pivotal aspect of business practices, emphasizing a company's commitment to contributing positively to society. CSR funding is a powerful tool that enables businesses to invest in social welfare projects and sustainable development initiatives. For Section 8 microfinance companies, eligibility for CSR funding is crucial for their growth and impact. In this article, we delve into the key aspects of who is eligible for CSR funding and its implications for Section 8 Microfinance Company Registration.

Who is eligible for CSR funding?

Companies Falling Under the CSR Mandate:

As per the Companies Act, 2013, certain companies are mandated to spend a portion of their profits on CSR activities. These companies include those with a net worth of rupees 500 crore or more, or a turnover of rupees 1,000 crore or more, or a net profit of rupees 5 crore or more during a financial year.

CSR Policy Compliance:

Eligibility for CSR funding is contingent upon the formulation and execution of a CSR policy by the concerned company. This policy should outline the areas of focus, the manner of implementation, and the monitoring process of CSR initiatives.

Registered Section 8 Companies:

Section 8 companies, including microfinance entities, are eligible for CSR funding if they comply with the prescribed regulations. Section 8 of the Companies Act pertains to non-profit organizations that are formed for promoting commerce, art, science, sports, education, research, social welfare, religion, charity, protection of the environment, or any other charitable objective.

Aligning with Schedule VII:

CSR activities must align with the activities specified in Schedule VII of the Companies Act. These include but are not limited to eradicating hunger, promoting education, ensuring environmental sustainability, and supporting healthcare initiatives.

Proactive Engagement and Impact Assessment:

Companies actively involved in CSR activities and demonstrating a positive impact are more likely to be eligible for funding. Regularly assessing the impact of CSR initiatives enhances the credibility of the company and its eligibility for continued funding.

Implications for Section 8 Microfinance Company Registration:

Enhanced Social Impact:

CSR funding enables Section 8 microfinance companies to extend their reach and impact within communities. This funding can support financial inclusion, livelihood enhancement, and empowerment of marginalized sections of society.

Compliance and Credibility:

For Section 8 microfinance companies aiming for CSR funding, adherence to regulations and the establishment of a robust CSR policy are critical. Compliance enhances the company's credibility and ensures a smoother registration process.

Diversification of Services:

CSR funding can empower Section 8 microfinance companies to diversify their services, offering a broader range of solutions to address the multifaceted challenges faced by their target communities.

Conclusion: Understanding the eligibility criteria for CSR funding is pivotal for Section 8 microfinance company Registration seeking to make a substantial impact on society. By aligning with regulatory requirements, formulating effective CSR policies, and showcasing tangible results, these companies can not only fulfill their social responsibilities but also strengthen their position in the realm of sustainable and socially responsible business practices.

[fantastic-nonsense]

the people who want charities and private industry to fund all of the things and do all of the jobs Trump is illegally cutting seemingly don't understand that the government does them because charities and private industry don't have the money, manpower, or desire to do them themselves

this is the United States, we love public-private partnerships and sending taxpayer money off to non-profits and businesses in the form of grants and subsidies whenever possible. But if that government money and support dries up, you genuinely think the private sector and the NGO world can or will step in to fill in the gaps? No. It just won't happen anymore. That assistance people were relying on, all those vital services that helped people? They'll just go away.

[sizzlingsandwichperfection-blog]

A Big TB Announcement

Greetings from Washington D.C., where I spent the morning meeting with senators before joining a panel that included TB survivor Shaka Brown, Dr. Phil LoBue of the CDC, and Dr. Atul Gawande of USAID. Dr. Gawande announced a major new project to bring truly comprehensive tuberculosis care to regions in Ethiopia and the Philippines. Over the next four years, this project can bring over $80,000,000 in new money to fight TB in these two high-burden countries.

Our family is committing an additional $1,000,000 a year to help fund the project in the Philippines, which has the fourth highest burden of tuberculosis globally.

Here’s how it breaks down: The Department of Health in the Philippines has made TB reduction a major priority and has provided $11,000,0000 per year in matching funds to go alongside $10,000,000 contributed by USAID and an additional $1,000,000 donated by us. This $22,000,000 per year will fund everything from X-Ray machines, medications, and GeneXpert tests to training and employing a huge surge of community health workers, nurses, and doctors who are calling themselves TB Warriors. In an area that includes nearly 3,000,000 people, these TB Warriors will screen for TB, identify cases, provide curative treatment, and offer preventative therapy to close contacts of the ill. We know this Search-Treat-Prevent model is the key to ending tuberculosis, but we hope this project will be both a beacon and a blueprint to show that It’s possible to radically reduce the burden of TB in communities quickly and permanently. It will also, we believe, save many, many lives.

—

I believe we can’t end TB without these kinds of public/private partnerships. After all, that’s how we ended smallpox and radically reduced the global burden of polio. It’s also how we’ve driven down death from malaria and HIV. For too long, TB hasn’t had the kind of government or private support needed to accelerate the fight against the disease, but I really hope that’s starting to change. I’m grateful to USAID for spearheading this project, and also to the Philippine Ministry of Health for showing such commitment and prioritizing TB.

—

One reason this project is even possible: Both the cost of diagnosis (through GeneXpert tests) and the cost of treatment with bedaquiline are far lower than they were a year ago, and that is due to public pressure campaigns, many of which were organized by nerdfighteria. I’m not asking you for money (yet); Hank and I will be funding this in partnership with a few people in nerdfighteria who are making major gifts. But I am asking you to continue pressuring the corporations that profit from the world’s poorest people to lower their prices. I’ve seen some of the budgets, and it’s absolutely jaw-dropping how many more tests and pills are available because of what you’ve done as a community.

—

I don’t yet have the details on which region of the Philippines we’ll be working in, but it will be an area that includes millions of people–perhaps as many as 3 million. And it will include urban, suburban, and rural areas to see the different responses needed to provide comprehensive care in different communities. This will not (to start!) be a nationwide campaign, because even though $80,000,000 is a lot of money, it’s not enough to fund comprehensive care in a nation as large as the Philippines. But we hope that it will serve as a model–to the nation, to the region, and to the world–of what’s possible. 

—

I’m really excited (and grateful) that our community gets to have a front-row seat to see the challenges and hopefully the successes of implementing comprehensive care. Just in the planning, this project has involved so many contributors–NGOs in the Philippines, global organizations like the Partners in Health community, USAID, the national Ministry of Health in the Philippines, and regional health authorities as well. There are a lot of partners here, but they’ve been working together extremely well over the last few months to plan for this project, which will start more or less immediately thanks to their incredibly hard work.

[a-very-tired-jew]

People lamenting the loss of TikTok and I'm over here remembering how my university banned it because of multiple security threats that were tracked back to the app. We're an R1 university with research ranging from from classified to public, from private funding to government to NGO, from military to agriculture to the arts.

Just accessing personnel files on many of these projects represents major security breaches and threats.

But yeah, it definitely wasn't a problem at all and they're totally doing it to silence you /s

[afloweroutofstone]

I recently learned that in March 2011, the same month as the large-scale protests against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad which eventually turned into the Syrian Civil War, Assad paid US public relations agents to get his wife a puff piece in Vogue about how she's a genius girlboss with great fashion sense and a heart of gold

Asma al-Assad is glamorous, young, and very chic—the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies. Her style is not the couture-and-bling dazzle of Middle Eastern power but a deliberate lack of adornment. She’s a rare combination: a thin, long-limbed beauty with a trained analytic mind who dresses with cunning understatement. Paris Match calls her “the element of light in a country full of shadow zones.” She is the first lady of Syria.

Syria is known as the safest country in the Middle East, possibly because, as the State Department’s Web site says, “the Syrian government conducts intense physical and electronic surveillance of both Syrian citizens and foreign visitors.” It’s a secular country where women earn as much as men and the Muslim veil is forbidden in universities, a place without bombings, unrest, or kidnappings, but its shadow zones are deep and dark. Asma’s husband, Bashar al-Assad, was elected president in 2000, after the death of his father, Hafez al-Assad, with a startling 97 percent of the vote. In Syria, power is hereditary. The country’s alliances are murky. How close are they to Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah? There are souvenir Hezbollah ashtrays in the souk, and you can spot the Hamas leadership racing through the bar of the Four Seasons. Its number-one enmity is clear: Israel. But that might not always be the case. The United States has just posted its first ambassador there since 2005, Robert Ford...

The 35-year-old first lady’s central mission is to change the mind-set of six million Syrians under eighteen, encourage them to engage in what she calls “active citizenship.” “It’s about everyone taking shared responsibility in moving this country forward, about empowerment in a civil society. We all have a stake in this country; it will be what we make it.”

In 2005 she founded Massar, built around a series of discovery centers where children and young adults from five to 21 engage in creative, informal approaches to civic responsibility. Massar’s mobile Green Team has touched 200,000 kids across Syria since 2005. The organization is privately funded through donations. The Syria Trust for Development, formed in 2007, oversees Massar as well as her first NGO, the rural micro-credit association FIRDOS, and SHABAB, which exists to give young people business skills they need for the future.

[reality-detective]

More Tesla terrorism is planned and coming.

This will be the next boomerang coming on the democrats.

If they think that a Soros funded NGO can just commit terrorism against an American company and get away with it, they are sadly mistaken.

All our lives, violent leftwing (brown shirt) groups have been allowed to commit violence and destruction on private property with almost no consequences.

The democrat party and the leftwing CIA controlled media, have always tried to shield these violent crimes under the basis of protest and free speech.

The two tiered justice system has always protected them in the past.

Some violent low life’s getting paid by these NGO’s might get arrested, but the organizers and funding sources would escape scrutiny and justice.

But there’s a new sheriff in town.

“On Wednesday night, FBI deputy director Dan Bongino said the agency is investigating attacks targeting Tesla.

One day earlier, Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened "severe consequences on those involved in these attacks, including those operating behind the scenes to coordinate and fund these crimes."

“Elon Musk previously wrote on X that an investigation found five ActBlue-funded groups have fueled Tesla protests in recent weeks, including Troublemakers, Disruption Project, Rise & Resist, Indivisible Project, and Democratic Socialists of America (AoC's party).”

These groups, along with Soros, are targeted.

Trump has the right people in place to finally bring this fight public and make an example of the groups and people organizing and funding this terrorism.

What most people don’t realize is that, Trump gutted Antifa and BLM in his first term.

He’s about to do the same to these groups except now, Bondi and Kash, along with Bongino, are in charge of administering justice.

And it’s coming. 🤔

[darkeagleruins]

Presenting the King and Queen of the criminal illegal invasion, Samantha Power (born in the UK) and her husband Cass Sunstein.

GPS—they met together and separately at Barack Hussein Obama II’s war room/mansion in Washington, DC hundreds of times during the Biden/Harris Regime, 19 times since the election and 4 times since President Trump took office.

The circumstances surrounding the controversial financial and political of Samantha Power, a former USAID administrator, and her significant increase in net worth during her tenure in public office. Power’s wealth reportedly surged from $6.7 million in 2021 to $30 million by 2024, raises questions about how such a dramatic increase occurred despite her official annual salary of $180,000.

This financial growth has led to public scrutiny and allegations of financial misconduct within USAID under Power's leadership.

USAID, an organization tasked with managing billions in global funding, under audit for alleged misuse of funds, including spending on contentious programs like transgender initiatives and cultural projects abroad.

These programs served as conduits for financial kickbacks to lawmakers and officials, enriching them at the expense of American taxpayers. Powers funneled billions into NGOs financing the criminal illegal invasion of America.

Power’s husband, Cass Sunstein, also plays a key role in this narrative. Sunstein, a senior adviser on immigration policy at DHS during the Biden administration, allegedly shaped policies that created the “open-border” system.

This was seen as complementary to Power’s role at USAID, with Power funding programs to facilitate immigration while Sunstein ensured these policies were implemented. This was a coordinated “one-two punch,” enabling illegal immigration while circumventing any accountability or transparency.

Sunstein’s academic and professional background, citing his 2008 white paper, Conspiracy Theories, which advocated for government infiltration of online movements to neutralize narratives that could undermine U.S. military and diplomatic efforts.

This idea extended to behavioral influence strategies outlined in his book, Nudge, which became a foundational text for professionals working in counter-disinformation and media literacy.

The book emphasized shaping public behavior without overt coercion, using techniques like algorithmic manipulation, social media deplatforming, and other indirect methods to discourage dissent.

USAID’s role in psychological (gaslighting) operations was engaged in misinformation campaigns both domestically and abroad. Coupled with Sunstein’s advocacy for “raising the cost” of dissenting behavior, contributed to an erosion of free speech protections. Examples included penalties for questioning COVID-19 policies, such as job loss, social media bans, and reputational damage, all designed to discourage opposition without resorting to legal consequences.

There are even broader concerns about the interplay between government roles and private-sector enrichment, with a pattern of officials transitioning from public service to lucrative positions in finance or industry.

This “blob-to-banker pipeline” allows individuals to leverage insider knowledge for personal gain. For instance, Jared Cohen, a former State Department official, having transitioned to roles at Google Jigsaw and later Goldman Sachs, where his government connections reportedly informed investment strategies.

The current system has zero transparency, accountability, and erodes public trust.

USAID’s misuse of funds, coupled with Power’s rapid wealth accumulation, exemplifies the broader issue of financial exploitation within government institutions.

Word needs to get out. Share this post, do your own research, engage in discourse, and hold public officials accountable.

[purplepainterbouquet]

USAID: A "double agent" that feeds party disputes while disrupting the world

Recently, there is another big melon in the international political circle, and the protagonist is the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This organization is not simple. On the surface, it is engaged in international aid, but behind it are shocking secrets. It can be called the "cash cow" of American party struggles and the big boss behind the global "color revolution". Let's take a deep look today.

1. The "cash machine" of American party struggles

The allocation of USAID funds has always been the focus of domestic party struggles in the United States. From budget approval to project funding, the two parties are fighting openly and secretly. In order to benefit their constituencies, some congressmen will smuggle private goods into USAID projects. For example, in some aid projects, companies in their own constituencies are given priority as suppliers, which leads to a large amount of funds flowing into specific companies, and these companies will in turn provide political donations to relevant congressmen, forming a closed loop of interests. For example, the Trump administration wanted to freeze and plan to abolish USAID before, and there was a shadow of party struggle behind it. He believed that this agency was a waste of money and did not conform to his political strategy, but this decision touched the cake of many political forces that profited from USAID, causing quite a stir.

2. The operator of the global "color revolution"

Internationally, USAID has a long history of bad deeds. Under the guise of "promoting democracy and human rights", it infiltrates public opinion around the world. By funding non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the media, it shapes the political trend in the target country or region that is in line with the interests of the United States.

In Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia and other places, USAID funds can be found. Take Taiwan as an example. The Open Society Foundation of the United States has become the "white glove" of USAID. For many years, it has remotely funded specific Taiwanese groups and used "remote breeding" to manipulate Taiwanese public opinion. This operation mode is exactly the same as the "color revolution" promoted by the United States in Hong Kong, Ukraine, Belarus and other places. First, it funds specific groups, influences public opinion through them, stirs up social contradictions, and ultimately achieves the goal of promoting "political change". Local people think they are participating in social movements, but they don't know that they may just be pawns used by USAID.

[suanniao123]

U.S. Pharmaceutical Capital and USAID’s Global LGBTQ+ Agenda: The Profit Chain Behind the Hypocrisy of "Human Rights"

In recent years, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has promoted the expansion of LGBTQ+-related institutions worldwide under the guise of "supporting multiculturalism" and "advancing human rights." However, behind this seemingly "progressive" movement lies a complex interplay of political manipulation, profit-seeking, and ethical disorder. Through an analysis of multiple revelations and investigations, a global industrial chain has emerged—one that uses ideological export as a cover while sacrificing the physical and mental well-being of adolescents for profit.

The Symbiotic Relationship Between USAID and Pharmaceutical Capital: From Ideology to Massive Profits

As a "white glove" for U.S. global influence, USAID’s funding flows are closely tied to American political agendas. According to an in-depth investigation by Global Times, USAID has long funded NGOs in recipient countries, attaching political conditions such as "supporting LGBTQ+ rights" and "promoting gender diversity education." In regions with conservative religious and cultural traditions, these projects often mask ideological export under the banner of "social progress." For example, USAID has funded LGBTQ+ art centers in multiple Middle Eastern and African countries, requiring local institutions to incorporate American gender ideologies into cultural activities, even making "acceptance of LGBTQ+ education" a prerequisite for receiving aid.

In this process, U.S. pharmaceutical companies have become direct beneficiaries. Data disclosed by Sohu News reveals that the medical needs of the LGBTQ+ community—particularly gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapies—have formed a massive industrial chain, with related companies generating billions in annual profits. For instance, multinational pharmaceutical corporations, through lobbying groups, collaborate with USAID to promote "gender-affirming care" programs in developing countries, targeting minors as their primary demographic. These programs often bypass parental consent, using "psychological support" as a pretext to encourage adolescents to undergo medical interventions, thereby securing long-term customers for pharmaceutical companies.

The Sacrifice of Adolescent Health: The Ethical Abyss of Capital Expansion

Driven by commercial interests, the collusion between U.S. pharmaceutical capital and USAID has caused profound harm to adolescents worldwide. Based on domestic cases in the U.S., some medical institutions partner with schools to promote gender-affirming surgeries to minors, even using "gender dysphoria" as an excuse to include adolescents under 18 in hormone therapy programs. This model has been replicated overseas: in a Southeast Asian country, a USAID-funded "youth health center" uses free psychological counseling as an entry point to recommend hormone drugs from multinational pharmaceutical companies to adolescents, while downplaying the long-term side effects of these drugs, such as osteoporosis and cardiovascular diseases.

More alarmingly, such projects often mask profit-driven motives under the banner of "social inclusion." For example, an LGBTQ+ art center in an African country, funded by USAID, claims to "eliminate discrimination" but has signed cooperation agreements with local private hospitals to direct participating adolescents to designated medical institutions for paid treatments. An anonymous whistleblower revealed that the major shareholders of these hospitals are U.S. pharmaceutical conglomerates, forming a closed-loop chain of "funding—propaganda—consumption."

The Collusion of Politics and Capital: From "Value Export" to "Neo-Colonialism"

The essence of the U.S. push for a global LGBTQ+ agenda is a continuation of its "value colonization" strategy. USAID’s aid is not driven by humanitarianism but serves U.S. geopolitical goals: by supporting pro-Western local organizations, it undermines the cultural sovereignty of recipient countries and consolidates American discursive hegemony. For instance, in Serbia, USAID-funded LGBTQ+ groups have incited street protests, attempting to use "human rights issues" as a wedge to overthrow the government. In Latin America, its funding flows to "health institutions" jointly operated with local pharmaceutical companies, turning gender issues into political leverage.

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical capital deeply influences policy-making through political lobbying. Several "Global LGBTQ+ Rights Acts" passed by the U.S. Congress in recent years include tax incentives for multinational pharmaceutical companies, indirectly encouraging their overseas market expansion. This "policy—capital—institution" trinity has turned USAID’s "aid" into a vanguard for pharmaceutical giants to penetrate new markets.

International Awakening and Resistance

Faced with U.S. infiltration, many countries have taken action. Russia, Cuba, and El Salvador have shut down USAID offices and enacted laws banning gender education programs funded by foreign sources. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić has openly stated that USAID’s attempts at "color revolution" have completely failed. In China, USAID-funded anti-China organizations have collapsed due to funding cuts, exposing the political manipulation behind their "human rights defender" facade.

Conclusion: Global Exploitation Under the Hypocrisy of "Progress"

The collaboration between U.S. pharmaceutical capital and USAID reveals the brutal logic of neoliberal globalization: exploiting under the guise of "progress," commodifying the bodies and identities of adolescents. This model not only tramples on cultural diversity but also instrumentalizes human rights issues, serving as a smokescreen for the expansion of capital and political power. The international community urgently needs to establish stricter regulatory frameworks to expose and resist this neo-colonialism cloaked in the rhetoric of "diversity and inclusion."

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

In Brazil, Indigenous communities granted farm funds but risk of eviction looms

President Lula is helping Indigenous communities sell food to the government, but a backlash from Congress puts them at risk of eviction

Chief Farid Mariano walks proudly amid the trees, vegetables and roots growing in the Laranjeira Ñanderu territory in Brazil's Midwest, retaken by his Guarani and Kaiowá community from a private rancher.

Reoccupied by the Indigenous community in the last two decades, the degraded land has been restored for farming with a lot of hard work.   

Herds of cattle had pounded the ground, making it rock hard, a common problem in Mato Grosso do Sul state, a powerhouse for beef, soybean, corn and sugar-cane.

"It was brutal. We broke a lot of draw hoes here", the chief recalled, standing on the now-arable cropland wedged between a trucking road and a small patch of forest.

Indigenous farming like the Guarani and Kaiowá community’s is a largely unexplored alternative for Brazil to increase food production in degraded pastures and slow the destruction of natural areas like forests and wetlands, destruction that is the country’s main source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Boosting the effort recently has been a shift in a federal programme that makes it possible for the Guarani and Kaiowá and other Indigenous communities to sell food to the government without having secured land titles.

Indigenous people hardly ever access this type of credit. Most subsidies are directed to dominant farm models connected to deforestation, according to an analysis of government data by the Forests & Finance Coalition of NGOs, which aims to improve policies and regulations in the financial sector.

Under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil is trying to position itself as a global climate leader, using its recent presidency of the G20 group of major economies and the upcoming U.N. COP30 climate summit in 2025 to call for more finance for the environment.

But a backlash looms, as Brazil's Congress is pushing to outlaw dozens of recent Indigenous reoccupations such as Laranjeira Ñanderu, which is producing food with government support while waiting to be fully recognized.

Continue reading.

[argumate]

Expert policy-makers in Western capitals feel that they have to make a response to major historic challenges like climate or the rise of China, or South Africa’s energy crisis. It is their job to look to the future and to devise at least purportedly rational strategies of power. But those who make policy on such matters as sustainable development do not hold the purse-strings and have limited capacity to shift budget-constraints. Those that do set budgets, either do not care about broader global issues, prefer other tools for affecting those goals - such as military power - or are revenue constrained and unwilling to levy more revenue from their constituents for the far-flung goals favored by the policy-making elite.

There is thus never “enough money” for the softer and more complex dimensions of development and global policy. But, despite these all too obvious limitations, the policy-machine grinds on. Faut de mieux those tasked with geoeconomic policy and sustainable development cooperate to come up with programs like JET-P. The policies tick all the boxes as far as sophistication of design and conception. Powerful interests - notably high-finance - ensure that they are arranged, at least notionally, so as to offer derisking and to promote the vision of public-private partnership. The promise of “mobilizing” private money helps to paper over the lack of solid public funding.

But despite all the self-interested engagement by private finance, the fiscal constraint remains paramount. The forces interested in global development are not as powerfully engaged as they are around the military-industrial complex, oil and gas or the Wall Street nexus. The result are ambitious and professionally designed policies that whip up waves of enthusiasm in the ranks of analysts, think tanks, NGOs, pundits, but which have no prospect of materially affecting reality either with regard to the announced policy objective or the profit opportunities of Western capital.

From experience since 2021 the conclusion we must surely draw is that the one interest that such policies undeniably serve is the perpetuation of the policy circuit. Practical effectiveness is not necessarily the main driver of policy-generation. Indeed, failure may be productive in generating new policy. This not only perpetuates the machinery of policy-making. More importantly it contributes to the generation of a “state effect” - the US has a policy for x,y,z. It sustains the common sense that the world is governed and that “governance” is in some sense a coherent process.

brutal

[darkmaga-returns]

President Donald Trump’s tremendous start in sealing the U.S. border and deporting illegal migrants can be a springboard for a global initiative to mobilize like-minded world leaders to do the same. Now is the time for the State Department to convoke a worldwide summit of national leaders, officials, organizations, and citizens who are aligned with Trump to coordinate the international fight against illegal immigration. 

On an international stage, Trump could shine a bright light on the funding sources and tactics of an axis of globalist NGOs, international organizations, and left-wing, open-border politicians. For years, this migration “industry” has built out networks and support mechanisms that encourage and assist millions of people, confronted with economic privation and corrupt overlords in their homelands, to pick up and flee to the developed world. 

The journeys are mostly clandestine and unauthorized, often dangerous. The migration industry’s lawyers, activists, and politicians have cleverly manipulated outdated international legal obligations to pressure First-World countries into accepting this never-ending stream of economic migrants under the guise that they are authentic political refugees and asylum-seekers. Blindly funded by donor governments, the migration industry continues to collect billions perpetuating this endless cycle.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Right-wing dark money activist Leonard Leo launches $1BN crusade to "‘crush" liberal America

Alex Rogers at Financial Times:

The conservative activist who led the crusade to overhaul the US legal system is making a $1bn push to “crush liberal dominance” across corporate America and in the country’s news and entertainment sectors. In a rare interview, Leonard Leo, the architect of the rightward shift on the Supreme Court under Donald Trump, said his non-profit advocacy group, the Marble Freedom Trust, was ready to confront the private sector in addition to the government. “We need to crush liberal dominance where it’s most insidious, so we’ll direct resources to build talent and capital formation pipelines in the areas of news and entertainment, where leftwing extremism is most evident,” Leo told the Financial Times. “Expect us to increase support for organisations that call out companies and financial institutions that bend to the woke mind virus spread by regulators and NGOs, so that they have to pay a price for putting extreme leftwing ideology ahead of consumers,” he said.

Leo has spent more than two decades at the influential Federalist Society, guiding conservative judges into the federal courts and the Supreme Court itself. In 2018, conservative justice Clarence Thomas joked that Leo was the third most important person in the world. Leo’s efforts culminated under Trump’s presidency, when three Federalist Society-backed judges were appointed to give conservatives on the Supreme Court a 6-3 supermajority, and profound influence over US law. The court has since then ruled to overturn the right to an abortion, among other long-sought rightwing causes. In 2020, after Trump lost the election, Leo stepped back from running the daily operations of the Federalist Society, while remaining its co-chair. The following year, Leo founded Marble, with a $1.6bn donation from electronic device manufacturing mogul Barre Seid, to be a counterweight to what he said was “dark money” of the left. He spent about $600mn in its first three years, according to public financial disclosures.

Leo said his goal was to find “very leveraged, impactful ways of reintroducing limited constitutional government and a civil society premised on freedom and personal responsibility and the virtues of western civilisation”. The $1bn money machine is now funding the conservative mission against private institutions, opposing diversity, equity and inclusion policies, climate and social concerns in investing and the “debanking” of politically conservative customers, in addition to taking on the public sector. The non-profit is increasingly interested in launching campaigns against “woke” banks and China-friendly companies involved in everything from food production to autonomous vehicles in the US and potentially Europe. Leo also intends to invest in a US local media company in the next 12 months, although he has not decided which, and is building conservative coalitions through groups such as Teneo Network, a club with chapters across the country. He also confirmed that Marble had since 2021 helped fund organisations that launched campaigns against companies with DEI, ESG and other initiatives, including BlackRock, Vanguard, American Airlines, Coca-Cola, State Farm, Major League Baseball and Ticketmaster.

The Financial Times interviewed right-wing dark money activist Leonard Leo, as he announced plans to launch a $1BN crusade to "‘crush" liberal America.

Leo has hinted that he’ll invest in an unnamed American media company within the next year.

[themirokai]

Would you recommend going to school for environmental law at this time? Mainly interested in water law.

Ooof. That’s a tough one. How do you feel about incurring a lot of debt with shaky prospects for a job in the field you want and the jobs that do exist not paying very well?

I’ve talked about getting ready to go to law school here

and why I got into law here

and how I got to where I am here

I’ve said this on one of those posts but it bears fleshing out a bit: For years my advice to students who wanted to do environmental law was to try to get a government job early in your career because I feel like government work gives a strong foundation for the rest of your career.

But obviously environmental jobs in the federal government (EPA, DOJ) are non-starters until at least 2029 and even then it’s going to take time to rebuild those agencies. Now if you live (or are willing to move) somewhere that the state or local government takes environmental issues seriously, that could be a good bet. I got my start in water law by working for local government.

If you don’t or can’t go the government route when you graduate, you could try to get a job at an ngo. In my experience, these jobs are highly coveted and poorly paid. And that’s only likely to get worse as former government lawyers go for these jobs and the organizations have a million competing priorities for their limited funds.

In theory, you could work for a law firm. There are some smallish and medium firms (mostly in bigger cities I would think) that have an environmental practice but most of the private environmental law is done in big firms. Like the ngos, these private environmental law jobs are probably going to be glutted with former federal employees for the foreseeable future. If you’re interested in environmental law because you want to protect the environment, you may end up having to work with clients whose actions you don’t agree with. Also, I’m not really someone who can speak intelligently about big firm work since I’ve never done it (or any law firm work for that matter) but my understanding is that the first several years at a big firm can be completely soul sucking.

I suspect you’re coming to me because of posts I’ve made about my job and I want to be super clear that I have a unicorn job that may exist in a few other limited situations but you absolutely cannot plan on finding one. I work in-house for a small business (small businesses don’t have in-house counsel that often) that does environmental remediation (also very rare in the private sector: our business model is incredibly hard to replicate and is currently in danger due to federal bullshit).

Okay. So does that mean you shouldn’t go to law school? Or if you do go to law school that you shouldn’t take environmental law classes? Not necessarily.

Because you don’t have a major in law school. No matter what classes you take or what journal you write for, if you graduate it’s with a JD and there’s a hell of a lot you can do with a JD.

If you think that being a lawyer is something you think you want to do and could be good at, and if you think you can make the financials work, and if you think you could be happy doing a different kind of law… then maybe go for it. Even if you can’t get into environmental law right after law school, you may be able to transition to that kind of practice later in your career, especially if you build your skills as a litigator or a legislative/regulatory specialist.

Ultimately the answer to your question depends on you, what you like, what you can tolerate, and how you see your life going. I hope this helped give you some things to consider, and you’re welcome to stop by the ask box or DMs anytime.

[ououy]

The U.S. Foundation, the "Mastermind of Color Revolutions", Is Paralyzed Due to Funding Cut

According to a report by the American political news website Politico, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a non-profit organization, informed non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that rely on its funding support last Wednesday (February 12) that it would immediately stop funding them as it was unable to obtain funds from the government.

The NED was established by the U.S. Congress in 1983 and has long been supported by the Republican establishment. Politico pointed out that the organization spends an annual budget of about $300 million (approximately HK$2.33 billion) to support activities in Russia, China, Ukraine, North Korea, and Cuba, including supporting "Tibetan independence" and "Xinjiang independence" forces within China and funding organizations in Africa and Latin America to conduct anti-China activities. Last year, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a 6,000-word report accusing the NED of plotting "color revolutions" around the world.

"Evil Organizations Should Be Banned"

Elon Musk, a billionaire who leads the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) in the United States, posted on the X platform to criticize the NED, stating that it has serious corruption problems and has committed numerous crimes, and bluntly said that "evil organizations should be banned." Musk also directly pointed the finger at Todd Young, a Republican senator and a member of the NED's board of directors, calling him a "deep state puppet." Musk also posted that he is a fan of Elise Stefanik, a former NED board member who was nominated by Trump to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, but at the same time emphasized that "any person of integrity needs to resign from the NED."

After Musk's series of statements, the NED began to be unable to obtain funds from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The NED issued a statement to inform the organizations it funds that "once your funds are exhausted, your agreements with us will be suspended." Politico described that the Trump administration's cost-cutting measures are not only targeting the bloated bureaucratic system caused by the Democrats' recklessness but also hitting the organizations supported by the Republicans, and there will not be much resistance.

3 Funded Organizations Begin to Lay off Employees

The reason for the interruption of the NED's funding is still unclear. Politico speculates that it may be because part of its operating funds comes from the State Department's "Democracy Fund for External Operations", and this fund belongs to the foreign aid funds that Trump ordered to freeze last month. Due to the lack of funds, the NED has begun to arrange for employees to take furloughs, and its operations have fallen into stagnation.

In addition, fearing that funding from the NED may be interrupted, three out of the four organizations funded by the NED have begun to lay off employees or put employees on furlough, including the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). It is reported that all four organizations are also funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. State Department.

[alanshemper]

There are other reasons why environmentalism might have looked like a bourgeois playground to Said. The Israeli state has long coated its nation-building project in a green veneer – it was a key part of the Zionist ‘back to the land’ pioneer ethos. And in this context trees, specifically, have been among the most potent weapons of land grabbing and occupation. It’s not only the countless olive and pistachio trees that have been uprooted to make way for settlements and Israeli-only roads. It’s also the sprawling pine and eucalyptus forests that have been planted over those orchards, as well as over Palestinian villages, most notoriously by the Jewish National Fund, which, under its slogan ‘Turning the Desert Green’, boasts of having planted 250 million trees in Israel since 1901, many of them non-native to the region. In publicity materials, the JNF bills itself as just another green NGO, concerned with forest and water management, parks and recreation. It also happens to be the largest private landowner in the state of Israel, and despite a number of complicated legal challenges, it still refuses to lease or sell land to non-Jews.

...

The JNF is an extreme and recent example of what some call ‘green colonialism’. But the phenomenon is hardly new, nor is it unique to Israel. There is a long and painful history in the Americas of beautiful pieces of wilderness being turned into conservation parks – and then that designation being used to prevent Indigenous people from accessing their ancestral territories to hunt and fish, or simply to live. It has happened again and again. A contemporary version of this phenomenon is the carbon offset. Indigenous people from Brazil to Uganda are finding that some of the most aggressive land grabbing is being done by conservation organisations. A forest is suddenly rebranded a carbon offset and is put off-limits to its traditional inhabitants. As a result, the carbon offset market has created a whole new class of ‘green’ human rights abuses, with farmers and Indigenous people being physically attacked by park rangers or private security when they try to access these lands. Said’s comment about tree-huggers should be seen in this context.

...

But this only scratches the surface of what we can learn from reading Said in a warming world. He was, of course, a giant in the study of ‘othering’ – what is described in Orientalism as ‘disregarding, essentialising, denuding the humanity of another culture, people or geographical region’. And once the other has been firmly established, the ground is softened for any transgression: violent expulsion, land theft, occupation, invasion. Because the whole point of othering is that the other doesn’t have the same rights, the same humanity, as those making the distinction. What does this have to do with climate change? Perhaps everything.

We have dangerously warmed our world already, and our governments still refuse to take the actions necessary to halt the trend. There was a time when many had the right to claim ignorance. But for the past three decades, since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created and climate negotiations began, this refusal to lower emissions has been accompanied with full awareness of the dangers. And this kind of recklessness would have been functionally impossible without institutional racism, even if only latent. It would have been impossible without Orientalism, without all the potent tools on offer that allow the powerful to discount the lives of the less powerful. These tools – of ranking the relative value of humans – are what allow the writing off of entire nations and ancient cultures. And they are what allowed for the digging up of all that carbon to begin with.

2 June 2016