#rather than any set of ideologies and principles

[the-incorrigible-chaia]

[alt id]Two pages from the pamphlet "The Past Didn't Go Anywhere" by April Rosenblum, that read as follows:

it was a good try, but time to rethink.

on targeting “zionism”

A lot of activists work to avoid anti-Jewish oppression, and to make a distinction between Jewish people and Israeli misdeeds, by targeting their comments at "Zionists," not Jews, and "Zionism," not Judaism or Jewish culture. Unfortunately, this shortcut doesn't work.

First, it backfires because major, organized antisemitic movements also use the term, for the opposite purpose: to spread anti-Jewish ideology without looking so bad. That's why 2005's international conference, "Zionism As the Biggest Threat to Modern Civilization" was co-chaired by neo-nazi politician David Duke. For many antisemitic groups, “Zionists” are the demonic Jews controlling the world, Protocol-style; and “Zionism” is the general body of evildoing by Jews. Because we activists are only suspicious of Jew-bashing, not attacks on “Zionists,” their antisemitic imagery makes its way right into our circles. Second, because it replaces one one-dimensional image of a 'bad guy' with another. It bypasses the actual work of avoiding anti-Jewish oppression: reshaping how we think and talk about Jews and Israelis to see them as 3-dimensional human beings, capable of wrongdoing like any others. Finally, using the term "Zionists" doesn't protect Jews. It just makes people who bomb Jewish schools, synagogues, etc., call the people they're killing Zionists.

Principled anti-Zionism has little to do with the fake "Zionism" that antisemites like Duke attack. There are many rational reasons why some people are opposed to the philosophy that there should be a Jewish state, just as lots of rational reasons motivate others to believe a Jewish state is neccessary.*

There's no shame in thinking critically toward Zionism. But in a world of unresolved antisemitism, there's also no getting out of fighting this oppression head on.

*For instance: An anti-Zionist might rationally oppose Zionists' having consciously established a state where they did, knowing that this would lead to dispossessing the Palestinian people. A Zionist might observe that Jews' vulnerability was linked to being a permanently small minority and support Jews having one place where they are the governing majority.

innoculate your Palestine work against antisemitism

If you're white, understand: When you take no action to stop anti-Jewish patterns in our movements, you set Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims up to take the fall. Though historic Left mistreatment of Jews has largely been a legacy of white, European/American movements, Arabs and Muslims are the ones who today get publicly scapegoated for charges of Left antisemitism. Don't let them pay the price. Take the struggle on.

Beware of saying Israel is the only country doing anything, or the worst case of any given injustice; it’s often not true, and it gets used to justify global violence against Jews. Know and speak about countries guilty of similar offenses. This not only guard against danger to Jews; it brings a global perspective that strengthen the fights of all peoples, even while we focus on Palestinians.

Be specific about the injustice you're talking about. For instance, don’t jump into generalizations like “Israelis are like Nazis.” Focus on the original thought that led there; ie, “Israeli policies like [blank] treat Palestinians as if they’re not human.”

Remember that, as with every oppression, it’s possible to spread antisemitic ideas without necessarily harboring any ill will toward Jews. Stay open to re-evaluating tactics, even though you know your intentions are positive and just.

Don't casually use one-dimensional, charicatured portrayals of cruel Israelis. Rather than sensationalizing Israelis, and compounding anti-Jewish oppression in a world that already paints Jews as evil, help people see Palestinians: real people, suffering daily injustice, both mundane and extreme, and deserving of global attention.

At the center of Palestinians’ struggle for freedom and human dignity is their human and legal Right to Return to their land. But there are real reasons why Jews around the world fear losing majority control of Israel. (See p. 25.) If you fight for the Right to Return, understand the implications it could have for Jews in a world where anti-Jewish oppression has not been solved. Consider what role you can play in bringing about global safety for Jewish people.

If people use opposition to the term 'antisemitism' to shut down discussion, by all means, speak of anti-Jewish oppression. But speak of it. Don't let fellow activists silence conversation about antisemitism by complaining that the word is wrong, and blaming Jews for the problem. (See page 6.)

Above all, remember:

Taking care to resist antisemitism is not about walking on eggshells or acquiescing to pressure. It's about making a greater commitment to refusing to take part in oppression - and building movements that can win.

[end id]

[deepseasmetro]

I think the asexuality conversation in your inbox is super interesting, what I’m noticing is that a lot of people are taking (very real and valid) sociological forces in their analysis of asexual struggles while you’re working on material analysis and what is based on things concrete and cohesive as classes. I think this is a great way to approach the subject that I feel has been absent of what was known as “ace discourse” years ago that sort of flattened the discussion to this trite, vague, and uninteresting question of “Are Asexuals Oppressed with a capital O or Not?” that were always devoid of nuance and meant to be answered with “Yes” or “No” full stop and ofc rampant with unnecessary hostility on both sides that sought to either be of complete validation or condemnation as if exclusionism or inclusionism could even possibly be ideological positions with tangible consequences or based in any sort of real life material reality. (Like what queer space — gay bars, pride, activist groups etc. realistically has ever sought to include or exclude anyone based on “not being queer/oppressed enough” rather than existing bigotry such as racism or transphobia in the history of ever?) Instead it’s a lot of people arguing without any sort of framework on how they’re defining “Oppression” like saying non normative sexuality (which asexuality/aromanticism if I define it in its most basic terms as boundary setting of No attraction or pursuit) is socially punished is absolutely true, it’s just that the struggles asexual/aromantic people face as a result of their orientation will inherently be shared with other groups who will face it for their reason (while also acknowledging that asexuals can and have been on the receiving end of violence/bigotry for those identities period, it’s just that they specifically have never been single targets of structural oppressive forces, they’ve never had their discrimination codified into law or faced criminalization because of it) I think there’s this sort of mean spirited way of going about it most of the time and I get why people are defensive about their position. It’s just that too often I feel like people don’t acknowledge that multiple things at once can be true and that there just has to be an easy answer for everything. it just manifests in people refusing to listen to each other and not working off clear boundaries so these arguments just rarely put into this kind of cohesive analysis based on material realities so I’m glad to see you doing it.

yeah agreed. i was there in the trenches of ace discourse back in the early 2010s, and will admit to have engaged in it in a much less principled and more vitriolic way - as many people did (in our defense, we were teenagers). the defensiveness and strict "inclusionist" stance that's developed since makes perfect sense given the, as you say, very mean spirited way people talked about this in the past. as i've grown though i've been able to better understand why these particular feelings of mine formed, and what exactly it was about "ace discourse" that sat so wrong with me.

but as you say, it's complicated! there's nuance! and taking the stance that "aphobia" is like, a real and concrete social force is erasing that nuance.

[malfiora]

Characterization Compendium

Key

Star sign: (canon vs. inspiration) traits from that sign that fit with this character

Canon = this is the character's sign based off their official/generally accepted birthday

Inspiration = this is the sign that this character reminds me of, and here's why

Colors are based off the elements each sign could be:

Air • Water • Fire • Earth

Batfam

Bruce

Walks the razor's edge between light and dark and develops an unhealthy but necessary dependence on his kids (particularly Dick) to stay grounded in the light.

Loves his kids, loves being around them, will never say this to them unless he's on the brink of death but there are signs. Loves them all equally but treats them differently based on personality, age, and background, which is often mistaken as him playing favorites (it's not).

Immutable personal moral code but demonstrates mental flexibility (or cognitive dissonance) toward others, especially his allies.

I go back and forth between Catholic, Jewish, and agnostic for him.

Pisces: (canon) works well with any other sign, creative, deeply emotional and intuitive, hates being inauthentic, shuts down when hurt or slighted, nonconfrontational (in relationships not in the field lol – he'd rather ignore the problem than have a difficult conversation about it)

Dick

Extremely observant, which manifests as intuition. This means that both his deductive reasoning skills and ability to read others are par excellence. In social settings, he won't vocalize this process (depending on the context he may not even realize he's doing it) but will react to whatever he reads. Others read this as charm (or intimidation).

Talent for leadership despite working more efficiently alone. Both his charisma and experience make people naturally turn to him, and a deep seated compulsion to meet others' expectations means he often does take the lead.

Relationships: Barbara is one of his best friends before anything else; Jason is his (the one he gave the mantle of Robin to, the person who first shifted his identity toward mentor/big brother); Tim is the first he got to mentor; Damian is the son-brother (the one he raised and dotes on)

Scorpio: (canon? inspiration) [I will die on this hill] charismatic, manipulative, deeply and darkly emotional (some may say broody), fiercely protective of loved ones to the point of avenging them, holds grudges probably longer than he should, will lash out when hurt but feel bad about it

(Dick's nationality & ethnicity)

(Identity development theory)

Barbara

Used to dealing with men who have strong feelings about everything (i.e. Dick and Bruce) and not being taken seriously (first year or so as Batgirl, then later dealing with people's perceptions of her while disabled) so nothing phases her. Still, she has some insecurities, which she overcomes with sheer force of will that projects strength. Ultimately, she'd rather suffer in silence.

Doesn't completely agree with all of Bruce's ideologies (leading to some friction between her and Dick), especially around killing since her father's a cop. But they align enough to be allies. She respects Bruce and believes in Batman.

Aquarius: (inspiration) Follows her own inner compass, pulls away the more someone tries to control her, enjoys engaging in mental exercises

Jason

As Robin, he was constantly caught in the tension of living up to Dick's example and wanting to be considered his own person. He always treated Robin with reverence and tried to do everything by the book. His own trauma and Bruce's guilt have convinced them both that Jason was a "problem" – he wasn't. He took school and his material comforts seriously because he never had them, so he was a tidy kid and a great student. Critical thinking skills that he honed from reading classic lit.

As Red Hood, he's now torn between living his own life/principles and begrudgingly wanting to regain Bruce's trust/faith if not his love. (He's never lost Bruce's love, but he has yet to accept this.)

When he came back to Gotham, he was pissed that his death seemed to change nothing: Joker was still alive, Batman had a new Robin, and crime was still everywhere. He took matters into his own hands. He still believes his way is better than Bruce's but recognizes that it's futile to pursue his vision with the Batfam still around. If he thinks he can get away with it, he'll kill someone he thinks deserves to be killed (e.g. someone who hurts children, sexual assault perp)

Leo: (canon) headstrong, charismatic leader who attracts people to him even if he doesn't try/want to/understand why, can be insecure about why people like him (are they just using him/wanting something from him, or so they genuinely like him?), protective of those closest to him, he'll talk a lot of shit but it actually takes a lot to provoke him to act, but when he does it's vicious and you'll feel like you deserved it

(Additional context)

Tim

Burnt out gifted kid who was adultified as a teenager because he had to basically raise an adult (i.e. help piece together again Bruce's mental health). Middle kid syndrome – used to being ignored and uses it to his advantage. Often manipulates (or tries to) the others to enact some plan. Pretty shameless

Knows a lot of random stuff because it's helpful for a case but kinda clueless about anything else, great at deductive reasoning. Lives to terrorize Dick (sometimes) and Jason (always), while genuinely trying to be a good big brother to Damian and Duke.

I usually envision Tim as middle/upper class east/southeast Asian, which comes with a few features: private tutors, attending a private or magnet school, expected to go to college; additionally, some cultural practices that Tim doesn't take too seriously since his family is multi-gen American. He def has a jade Buddha necklace somewhere at home.

Libra: (inspiration) rigid sense of justice and morality, good judge of character

(How to make Tim an interesting character 1)

(How to make Tim an interesting character 2)

(How to make Tim an interesting character 3)

Cassandra

Doesn't speak often, preferring to listen and use nonverbals. Has strong opinions about things. Protective of her adoptive family, enjoys participating in shenanigans if only because she's included.

I want to learn more about Cass and think harder about how I want to write her, doesn't stop me from trying.

Taurus: (inspiration) strong opinions that take a lot of energy to change, reliable, trustworthy, stoic

Steph

Keeps things lighthearted but doesn't forgive very easily. She and Bruce have a shaky relationship due to his (perceived) lack of trust in her but she keeps things positive due to her love and respect for Barbara, Cass, and Tim.

Extremely resourceful, solid investigative and deductive reasoning skills, dedicated to the mission, fiercely loyal but also independent.

It can't be overstated how much I respect Stephanie's ability to fill a role, on top of her creating her own.

Sagittarius: (inspiration) down for adventure, has her own set of principles and doesn't follow people who don't adhere to hers or at least have their own, impulsive, good with money, regrets nothing

Damian

Projects self confidence, which is mostly authentic, but he has some deep insecurities around living up to the expectations and examples of everyone who came before him. Extremely independent but protective of those who rely on him / he cares about.

Inevitably acts like a child when it comes to mature topics, feeling strong emotions, and wanting to form connections with others (particularly caretakers). Strict vegetarian due to his respect for life, was raised Muslim and maintains some of the cultural practices.

Leo: (canon) Very much an August Leo – somehow attracts others to him regardless of how he feels about it, no need for external validation (although it's nice to hear), respects competence

Duke

Simultaneously has a lot to prove and needs no one's approval. He cannot sit by when he has the power to do something. Exercises probably the most emotional intelligence and self awareness of the Batfam. Doesn't fully see himself as part of the Batfam, and definitely feels guilty about being "chosen" when his other WAR friends were discarded. He looks up to Tim, who was mostly Robin when Duke was a kid.

Def uses his Black card when it makes life easier or funnier for him. Similarly, he plays up being a metahuman to garner sympathy or whatever from the others. Deep down, he's insecure about his powers because he doesn't know many other folks with powers who can help him train.

Leo: (canon) charismatic leader who attracts people to him, independent, doesn't care about what people think of him because he knows himself, knows exactly how to be annoying

Miscellaneous

How the sibs see each other (post)

Post of the sibling relationships (link)

On the Complexity of "Family" (link)

[traditionaldesires]

A bottom’s sexuality

I have been thinking over the years about what it means to be a bottom and I decided I want to try putting the standards I have developed for myself into words. There may be more posts eventually, but I’ll start with the subject that is at the core of being a bottom, sex(uality).

To start with, I know there are people who may accuse me of double standards for not applying the same to tops, but that is a false comparison. There are standards for how planes and cars are built, that are uniform within each category, but they are not the same across. Some basic principles are shared, like that the vessel needs to be safe, but otherwise it would not make sense to apply the plane standards to cars and vice versa. Similarly, tops and bottoms are not identical and while basic human decency should be expected from both, the standards are only uniform within people of the same group.

Below are the bare minimum standards I think any bottom should live up to and that I do my best to adhere to.

Keep the body count low. Staying a virgin until marriage is admirable if one can achieve it, but for most it is unrealistic as one enters at least some relationship before marriage. A good target is to keep sexual contacts within such committed relationships and not date every person you run into. Bottoming is riskier in terms of STDs and if I have been all around town, what does it say about my ability to stay loyal in a marriage?

Masturbation should at most be seen as a harm reduction activity to stay away from hookups while single, not as a pleasant pastime. When married (or in a committed relationship) it is cheating and not to be done, period. Time should be spent building my character to be a good wife.

One way to spend that time when married is preparing for marital duties. Bottoming often requires preparations and there are almost always ways to make oneself more attractive for one’s husband. Understanding one’s husband’s likes and catering to them is a key building block for a successful marriage.

Sex is called a marital duty because it is not about the bottom’s enjoyment. I consent to sex on my husband’s terms when marrying and offer myself in exchange for his affection and protection.

When married, it is ultimately up to one’s husband to set the expectations. From observations I do, however, see how damaging to the harmony of marriages bottoms’ sexual liberation is. A wife that drools over other men, flaunting herself to them and playing with herself rather than servicing her husband is a recipe for divorce. Maybe I’ll edit this later if I find better ways to formulate my ”ideology”, this was just my first attempt to put words on it.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Undoing ideology

Rather than becoming rooted in a single ideological current, Alston points to the potential of affirming the most enabling parts of a multiplicity of currents. Similarly, when we interviewed Richard Day, he made a distinction between an ideological approach and an ethical one, like Alston’s:

Day: If someone is working ideologically, they will have a pat answer to any question that might be asked, without having to do much in the way of thinking or analysis. If you ask a liberal about smashing bank windows in a protest, they will probably say it’s violent and bad; if you ask an anarchist, they will probably say it’s not violence, it’s destruction of stolen property and quite a valid thing to do. This is similar to working morally, in that you need only consult a tablet, ask a functionary such as a priest, and they will tell you what to do and not do. In a critical, analytic—ethical—way of relating, it is impossible to know what one might think or feel ahead of time; that will be contingent upon many circumstances of the situation. There is likely to be much more complexity, much more nuance, less dogmatism, certainty, and purity. In general, I think it’s safe to associate ideological ways of relating with rigid radicalism, and that’s why you find that so many people, all over the world, who are actually involved in the most powerful social movements and upheavals, tend to steer away from ideology, and orient more to shared values, practices, and goals. Nick & carla: And not being ideological means being uncertain, as well, right? Day: Yeah. Working non-ideologically definitely involves an element of openness, a vulnerability, not only at the level of emotion, but also at the level of thought, and of political relationships. There is a certain sort of safety in having an answer for everything.[151]

As we insisted earlier, ethics here does not mean an individualized set of fixed principles (as in consumer ethics, or personal ethics) but instead a capacity to be attuned to the situation, to be immersed in it, and to create something emergent out of the existing conditions. Alston speaks to the power and potential of working across difference in ways that respect where people are coming from:

Different consciousnesses can come from different places … and we can figure out the dialog, how to create a way forward that respects us all, that respects the different worlds that we come from. So for me, if that had happened back then in 1970, where would we have been right now? And for me, that’s such a better way to go, ‘cause for the queer community, or the Yoruba community that may exist in Brooklyn, what’s best for them? Whether one is a small geographical community or tied to their ethnicity or dealing with a lifestyle, we should just be open to come together and see how we can do this in a different kind of way. That’s the challenge.[152]

This is the ethics of encounter. Instead of asking whether we (or they) are inherently radical, revolutionary, or anarchist, an ethical approach asks questions about how we affect each other, what new encounters become possible, and what we can do together. None of the answers to these questions can be known in advance. They can only be asked as part of an open-ended, unfolding experiment, as markers in an always-changing world, in which we figure things out along the way. As the anarchist collective Crimethinc writes,

If the hallmark of ideology is that it begins from an answer or a conceptual framework and attempts to work backward from there, then one way to resist ideology is to start from questions rather than answers. That is to say—when we intervene in social conflicts, doing so in order to assert questions rather than conclusions.

What is it that brings together and defines a movement, if not questions? Answers can alienate or stupefy, but questions seduce. Once enamored of a question, people will fight their whole lives to answer it. Questions precede answers and outlast them: every answer only perpetuates the question that begot it.[153]

We would add that an important complement to asking questions is being able to listen sincerely to responses, and to those with altogether different questions. The power of questions comes from people being able to respond and hear each other in new ways. It comes from hanging onto the uncertainties they generate, and the new potential that comes along with them. To undo ideology is not as straightforward as taking off a pair of glasses to see the world differently. To ward off ideology is not finally to see clearly, but to be disoriented, allowing things to emerge in their murkiness and complexity. It might mean seeing and feeling more, but often vaguely, like flickers in one’s peripheral vision, or strange sensations that defy familiar categories and emotions. It is an undoing of oneself, cutting across the grain of habits and attachments. To step out of an inherited ideology can be joyful and painful.

[victimsofcps]

When Power Meets Parenthood: How a California Politician Destroyed Yolo County’s Child Welfare System

By An Anonymous Davis Citizen Of ~ 40 Years Time In The Community

In Yolo County, California, one powerful man’s personal heartbreak has reshaped an entire child welfare system — and many families are going to suffer now because of it.

The person responsible for the changes just referenced is Matt Rexroad, a longtime Republican political consultant, former county supervisor, and former mayor of Woodland. He did not begin his foster care journey with a plan to reform the system. He and his wife took in a baby boy from the foster system, whom Rexroad publicly referred to as “Bonus Baby” — a term that soon became a symbol of a larger, more controversial movement.

After parenting the boy for over two years, the Rexroads petitioned to adopt him. But the county’s Child Welfare Services (CWS) disagreed. In line with California’s state-mandated priority of family reunification, the agency determined that the child could safely return to his biological mother just days before the deadline in which her parental rights were set to be taken. The decision prompted a legal battle. The Rexroads fought the reunification plan in court but ultimately lost as foster parents have very little rights to the children they volunteer to help prior to adoption. It is generally the accepted principle that if you decide to volunteer as a foster parent, you’re aware that there may be a multitude of systemic inequities that you will witness when caring for foster children. However, the average person doesn’t generally concede of a vengeant plan born of ill will afterward that is with the intent to make everyone else in society have to suffer because of your emotional turmoil or in this case, emotional instability and incapacity to handle loss in a mature way.

Rather than walk away, Rexroad then effectively used his political leverage to launch a crusade against the county’s child welfare agency and against any and all families that would be seeking reunification or otherwise granted that privilege as Mr. Rexroad sought to take it from every family and child in Yolo County involved with CPS who should have benefited from this opportunity. And he did this to get even for the fact that he wasn’t allowed to adopt a child that wasn’t his from the get go. As a result, the doctrine of family reunification itself has now permanently changed in Yolo County. The end result is that Yolo County’s approach to child welfare has now dramatically changed and raised alarming questions about due process, judicial independence, and the real cost of political power in CPS decision-making.

A System Under Siege

What followed the court’s denial of the Rexroads’ adoption petition was an unprecedented campaign. Rexroad publicly lambasted the social workers and judges involved in the case. He argued that the child welfare system placed ideological allegiance to family reunification over the actual well-being of children. With the support of conservative networks and growing public sympathy, he called for sweeping changes to the way Yolo County handled foster care cases.

Rexroad’s criticism extended to the courtroom. He targeted Judge Steven Basha, a respected judge known for adhering to California’s reunification-first legal framework. Rexroad accused Basha of bias and used unethical maneuvers to have him removed from hearing child welfare cases by being forced to have to recuse himself from working in the juvenile detention court in order to avoid termination after most likely a lengthy term of legal proceedings that would have put his entire career under a microscope and traumatized him and his family in the process. He had no other reasonable option but to resign from the child welfare court in order to avoid being crucified in Rexroad’s witch hunt. Shortly thereafter, Judge Basha retired completely from practicing law.

Meanwhile, changes were happening behind the scenes. The county’s Department of Health and Human Services saw a leadership shake-up. The agency’s director resigned, and her replacement implemented a policy direction far more aligned with Rexroad’s views and the new policy director was more or less put in place by Rexroad pulling political shoestrings to line up circumstances as they would need to be set forth in order to guarantee a successful forward momentum on his personal vendetta.

Although Yolo County counsel warned the Board of Supervisors that a policy limiting reunification efforts would be illegal, the Board — influenced by Rexroad — still moved forward with directives that effectively discouraged returning children to their biological families.

A Dramatic Shift in Numbers — and Consequences

The results were swift and jarring.

Between 2016 and 2017, Yolo County saw a 70% increase in children removed from their homes and placed into foster care — all this at a time when statewide foster care numbers were on the decline. Most of these removals cited “neglect” as the reason, a charge that can be vague and often stems from issues related to poverty and substance abuse, but not necessarily abuse or any factual harm or overt harm to the children involved - in the majority of cases. Of course there are exceptions and these exceptions are not the majority nor the children whose families are being victimized unnecessarily by these changes.

While child safety should be paramount in any child welfare system, the data from Yolo County paints a concerning picture. As more children have been removed from their homes, rates of repeat maltreatment have now also begun to rise. This metric is a key indicator of system effectiveness, and the spike suggests that more removals do not translate into better outcomes for children. Rather they overwhelm child welfare social workers causing them to not have the necessary time needed to devote to their cases so that nobody ends up being able to get the appropriate services they need nor the social support and assistance for families that is necessary for the families and clients being served by this agency in order to be able to succeed.

Critics argue that rather than addressing root causes — such as lack of family support services, economic hardship, or housing instability — the system now simply defaults to removal. And with this shift, the very goals of child welfare may have been turned on their head.

The Broader Implications

What has happened is impacting people in every aspect of child welfare in Yolo County. For example, it has made the remaining juvenile dependency court judges in Yolo County such as Judge Daniel P. Mcguire, obviously far too nervous to rock the boat or to even dare to disagree with the recommendation of CPS social workers in the courts now, no matter how false or unjustified their claims and recommendations may be* because they have seen their colleague get ousted now for having stood up for what’s right. You can hardly blame these judges for trying to protect their own assets as surely they have their own families to consider and mouths to feed.

The bottom line though is that this sort of political manipulation is causing the citizens of Yolo County to suffer as a result of this man’s ethically wanton disregard for the taxpaying families of Yolo County. These citizens who initially supported him having his position here in our county chose to support Mr. Rexroad because they trusted him to look out for the betterment of our community and yet he has betrayed everyone and used legal power to undermine everyone, but particularly harming the children and their mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and friends and neighbors because the damage caused by frivolously terminating the rights of parents who otherwise could have easily reunified with their children is far reaching and impacts the entire community for the entirety of those people’s lives.

Matt Rexroad’s campaign has become a case study in what can happen when political influence supersedes policy expertise and judicial independence. While some parents and advocates have praised his willingness to challenge a broken system, many others warn that the reforms he inspired may have created a more punitive, less accountable CPS apparatus — one where removing children from their homes has become not just easier, but encouraged, and where reunification is just a buzzword in the court and no longer an actual incentive where families are concerned.

The case underscores the delicate balance CPS must strike: protecting children from harm without unnecessarily destroying families. When that balance is disrupted by personal agendas or political pressure, the consequences ripple far beyond a single case.

Yolo County’s experience is a cautionary tale. It highlights the vulnerability of child welfare systems to powerful individuals, especially when those individuals operate from a place of personal grievance and hold the levers of government.

What We Can Do To Prevent This From Happening Again

At the heart of it all, a boy known only to the public as “Bonus Baby” — now home with his family where he should be — we are all being forced to now pay a terrible price for this child and his family’s due process because of a powerful ex-foster parent’s inability to handle the emotional burdens of the job they chose to volunteer for. Perhaps child welfare workers should be subjecting potential foster parents to a far more rigorous requirement of psychological evaluation before allowing people to become approved and perhaps the emotional devastation that may be a potential cost of helping children via foster parenting is something that ought to be better communicated to potential foster parents beforehand because clearly some people are not cut out for such an emotionally demanding task.

…And there’s nothing wrong with that either. It takes a very special kind of person to be able to handle the ups and downs of foster parenting without becoming emotionally broken inside. But when individuals show that they cannot handle it, we as a society cannot permit them to destroy whole sections of our society on an emotional rampage as an acceptable response to their suffering.

The political changes that have occurred we must now work diligently to undo and everyone must do their part to make sure no one is ever allowed to victimize a community in this way ever again

[eretzyisrael]

by Jeremy England

The Jews do not venerate the image of a more-divine-than-usual human who achieved an abstract victory for all of humanity by dying horribly. And because we do not, we cannot accept the Western exhortation to be suicidally gentle with our enemies in order to receive a Christian burial on their “moral high ground.”

There are many things about the Jewish state, both as it currently is and as the Torah imagines it could be, that meet the loftiest ideals of the liberal, crypto-Christian West. Jews by and large love living in the liberal, secular West because our culture has great intuitive affection for freedom of speech and conscience, as well as the need for each unique individual to be given the freedom to discover his God-given purpose.

But as a reflection of the oneness of the God described therein, the Torah is obstinately balanced when it comes to simple principles. It insists on justice, but makes room for mercy. It cherishes human life, but acknowledges deadly violence can be correct. It sees all people as created in the image of God, but it commands the nation of Israel to play a unique priestly role, through example rather than through world-dominating force, in leading the world to greater knowledge and service of God.

Put into practice in 2024, this means that Israel must stop pretending it is a nation like any other, begging to be judged fairly by whatever standards the current hegemon has decreed we all agree upon. We need to look for standards from within our tradition to set a moral example for the whole world, while making it more practically possible to defend our homeland.

Instead of bragging about the extra danger our soldiers experience for the sake of sparing enemy noncombatants, we should reject the premise that we Jews bear any responsibility for protecting the human shields employed by our enemy.

Instead of threatening Jews with arrest for praying on the Temple Mount, we should take a hint from the “Al-Aqsa” moniker our attackers gave to their day of savage invasion and let kohanim up there on the hill to slaughter lambs for Passover.

And above all—given that land is nearly all that matters to this death-worshipping foe—instead of repeatedly withdrawing troops from areas we have just taken over so we can deny having unchristian territorial ambitions, we should conquer, annex, and resettle parts of Gaza so that Jews and friendly gentiles both can live there safely.

If our own, unsurpassably subtle ethical tradition guides us to these policies, then it is only our lingering ideological subjugation to the Western tradition that makes them seem scandalous. Like the Jew among nations, Israel constantly struggles with its half-successful attempt to blend in with the crowd and pretend to be a member like any other, and it is time to put an end to this paralyzing charade. We did not stick to our Law through 3,000 years of human civilization to continue national life as the perpetual defendant. It is our job to know that Law, to teach what we know—and, most of all, to live by it.

[gamingavickreyauction]

I don't know whether it's possible to avoid another Holocaust.

Fascism/protofascism seem to be on the rise around the world and the median voter seems completely nonchalant about it. Educating them about the Holocaust doesn't help because they just say 'well that's nothing like today' when they have a little education and none of them have the patience for a lot of education. Appealing to principles like democracy and human rights doesn't work because most people simply do not care about other people's rights- and many barely care about their own.

And there seems to be an inescapable feedback loop here- that liberal institutions get eroded, giving governments more power to undermine liberal institutions. The decline non-right-wing traditional media makes public opinion shift more rightwards and be more inclined to eliminate public funding for any remaining media sources, or to fund them individually. Perception that politics is already corrupt makes people less willing to defend them, and more accepting of further corruption.

It seems like an immutable truth that people will vote for whoever they think will make the economy good, and they always think the people with the militaristic organisation and the scapegoats will be best at making the economy good. At minimum no one is willing to vote for a party with practical policies they don't prefer because that party will preserve democratic institutions.

I'm terrified that the postwar concern about human rights and democracy was the anomaly- that the Holocaust was so shocking it made ordinary people actually care about civil rights- and that the further we get from that the more that concern gets eroded- even though education has improved, and even though bigotry has decreased- and that makes it ever easier to shift rightwards.

And there is no natural stopping point to the rightwards shift- people seem to get dragged along with the shift, they have no ideological anchor. So, even though it may take decades, I don't see how this can end other than in fascism- unless some kind of phase shift happens in our political dynamics. Which it could, but I don't see how.

I'm worried that, much as it has been argued that capitalism necessitates periodic wars to avoid economic stagnation, liberal democracy necessitates periodic Holocausts to shock people into actually caring about rights. There isn't one particular country that I have in mind here- there are many that could be the first to reach the point of committing a Holocaust, against a variety of groups. And that would shock the others into not doing so, just as the Holocaust did.

I'm not sure I endorse this view, because there is an alternative interpretation of the Holocaust that rather than it causing progressive social attitudes it was social attitudes becoming more progressive that made the Holocaust so shocking in the first place. There had been mass killing of Jews before, in (I think) every country of Europe, which were largely supported by the non-Jewish populations, and not viewed as shocking, anything the Holocaust. The particular scale and methods of the Holocaust set it apart, of course, but it's not clear how much of an effect that would have on how shocked people are. To most people the difference between 100,000 deaths and 10,000,000 is just a number. Clearly by the time of the Holocaust this historical level of antipathy towards Jews had already tempered significantly. This latter view would suggest liberal democracy is capable of sustaining concern for rights without Holocausts.

But bigotry is not the main trend I am thinking of, and I think it is a lagging rather than a leading indicator here. And I'm not sure concern for democractic institutions was much greater in most of Europe on the eve of WW2 than it was in Germany. Fascism certainly had many proponents everywhere, and was still on the rise at the time WW2 started- if not for Nazi Germany it seems very plausible that things would have kept getting worse elsewhere until the Holocaust happened somewhere else, by just the same dynamic as our politics seems to be following today. There might not yet have been enough antisemitism, but that would follow decaying democracy in time.

I don't feel able to judge between these two views, and maybe one can draw a spectrum of intermediates. But god I hope it's the latter.

If liberal democracy does necessitate periodic genocides that would, ironically, greatly weaken the argument for democracy at all, as it's difficult to see models of democracy that are different enough not to fall into this trap being stable. The arguments against democracy were always fear of the ignorant masses following demagogues to hell, and liberal democracy hasn't been around long enough yet to test if this is true. I guess here I'm proposing the theory that it is true, with the Holocaust causing an aberration of that trend lasting over half a century.

It would be nice to know more about the history of fascism to better judge which narrative is more convincing.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 4, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 05, 2024

The Gettysburg Address it wasn’t.

Seventy-seven years ago, on June 5, 1947, Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who had been a five-star general in World War II, gave a commencement speech at Harvard University. 

Rather than stirring, the speech was bland. Its long sentences were hard to follow. It was vague. And yet, in just under eleven minutes on a sunny afternoon, Marshall laid out a plan that would shape the modern world.

“The truth of the matter is that Europe's requirements for the next three or four years of foreign food and other essential products—principally from America—are so much greater than her present ability to pay that she must have substantial additional help or face economic, social, and political deterioration of a very grave character,” he said. “It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.”

In his short speech, Marshall outlined the principles of what came to be known as the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe in the wake of the devastation of World War II. The speech challenged European governments to work together to make a plan for recovery and suggested that the U.S. would provide the money. European countries did so, forming the Organization for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) in 1948. From 1948 to 1952, the U.S. would donate about $17 billion to European countries to rebuild, promote economic cooperation, and modernize economies. By the end of the four-year program, economic output in each of the countries participating in the Marshall Plan had increased by at least 35%.

This investment helped to avoid another depression like the one that had hit the world in the 1930s, enabling Europe to afford goods from the U.S. and keeping low the tariff walls that had helped to choke trade in the crisis years of that decade. Marshall later recalled that his primary motivation was economic recovery, that he had been shocked by the devastation he saw in Europe and felt that “[i]f Europe was to be salvaged, economic aid was essential.”

But there was more to the Marshall Plan than money. 

The economic rubble after the war had sparked political chaos that fed the communist movement. No one wanted to go back to the prewar years of the depression, and in the wake of fascism, communism looked attractive to many Europeans. 

“Marshall was acutely aware that this was a plan to stabilize Western Europe politically because the administration was worried about the impact of communism, especially on labor unions,” historian Charles Maier told Colleen Walsh of the Harvard Gazette in 2017. “In effect, it was a plan designed to keep Western Europe safely in the liberal Western camp.” It worked. American investment in Europe helped to turn European nations away from communism as well as the nationalism that had fed World War II, creating a cooperative and stable Europe. 

The Marshall Plan also helped Europe and the U.S. to articulate a powerful set of shared values. The U.S. invited not just Europe but also the Soviet Union to participate in the plan, but Soviet leaders refused, recognizing that accepting such aid would weaken the idea that communism was a superior form of government and give the U.S. influence. They blocked satellite countries from participating, as well. Forcing the USSR either to join Europe or to divide the allies of World War II put Soviet leaders in a difficult position and at a psychological disadvantage. 

With a clear ideological line dividing the USSR and Europe, Europeans, Americans, and their allies coalesced around a concept of government based on equality before the law, secularism, civil rights, economic and political freedom, and a market economy: the tenets of liberal democracy. As Otto Zausmer, who had worked for the U.S. Office of War Information to swing Americans behind the war, put it in 1955: “America’s gift to the world is not money, but the Democratic idea, democracy.” 

In the years after the Marshall Plan, European countries expanded their cooperative organizations. The OEEC became the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1961 and still operates with 37 member countries that account for three fifths of world trade. And the U.S. abandoned its prewar isolationism to engage with the rest of the world. The Marshall Plan helped to create a liberal international order, based on the rule of law, that lasted for decades. 

In his commencement speech on June 5, 1947, Marshall apologized that “I’ve been forced by the necessities of the case to enter into rather technical discussions.” But on the ten-year anniversary of the speech, the Norwegian foreign minister had a longer perspective, saying: “[T]his initiative taken by Marshall and by the American Government marked the beginning of a new epoch in western Europe, an epoch of wider, and above all more binding, cooperation between the countries than ever before.” 

Not bad for an eleven-minute speech.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[toweringclam]

MTG Plane Concept: Paramount City

Elevator pitch: Superheroes in MTG

The story is set in Paramount City, a metropolis rivaling New Capenna (though still dwarfed by Ravnica). It's a thoroughly modern city, though with touches that make it fit with Magic's design aesthetics. In this world, there's a mysterious force called the Rift that drives people to extremes of both good and evil. Some people can tap into the Rift through various methods (inborn talent, actual magic, gadgets, intense training, etc), and those people are called Supers. Using Rift is aided by adopting an archetypal identity, especially if you keep it separated from your "normal" identity, hence all the wild costumes and names.

Mechanically, the set would be factional based on arcs. However, rather than "centered" arcs (one color+its allies) it's more like "split" arcs (enemy colors+their mutual ally). This means that each faction is pulled in two different directions by opposing goals, fitting the theme of split identities. Also, although there are five factions, there's a pretty strong good/evil split, with the faction centered on Blue as a spoiler.

Those factions are:

The Metropolitan Defenders (Defenders, GWU): The big damn heroes. The ones you think of when you hear the word "hero." They're the most morally upright team, holding themselves and others to the highest standards of ethics (W). Their internal divide is between serving the people (G) or upholding the law (U).

The People's Underground (Underground, RGW): Split off from the Defenders years ago over ideological differences. A loosely affiliated network of neighborhood protectors, vigilantes, and others who skirt up to the edge of the law. They're dedicated to protecting the people of the city (G), but are split over whether to pursue justice (W) or vengeance (R) against those who would cause harm.

The Breakers' Union (Breakers, BRG): Originally started by disgruntled henchmen, they're an alliance of small-time crooks, anarchists, and others who find themselves on the wrong side of the law. They defy the system almost on principle (R), but are torn between whether they should do something about it (G) or just serve their own self-interest (B).

The Council of the Rift (Council, UBR): The Council are a contentious group of malefactors who all seek to exploit the Rift for their own ends. They're willing to employ any methods to pursue their own personal power at the expense of everyone else (B). Though some wish to use it to remake the world in their own image (U), others would rather just see the world burn (R).

Initiative Omega (Omega, WUB): An organization of scientists, soldiers, and spies formed by the government in response to the rise of Supers. Omega sees both sides as dangerous and disruptive to the status quo. To that end, they seek to understand the Rift as much as possible (U), though whether they'll use it for the betterment of mankind (W) or to eliminate all Supers (B) is still up in the air.

I'll maybe go more in-depth on this idea later, just want to get it out there for now and see if people like it

[ninjakittenarmy]

Some of you people need to understand that being anti-military is a fringe position, even on the left.

“Why do so many stories keep portraying the US Military in a positive light?”

Because more people watch that stuff. Because most people don’t like stories that constantly shit on soldiers. It is true that the Pentagon offers backing to make media that is favorable to the military but plenty of media is just as positive about the military without that, and often the makers of stuff that IS backed by the Pentagon are NOT in fact sellouts abandoning principles for money. They believe in what they’re selling and have no reason to refuse the aid because they do not see the military as unsavory benefactors.

“I thought we all decided that the military was an imperialist force and foreign intervention was inherently bad!”

No, YOU decided that, and other people put up with it and barely argued with you on political forums because you supported their other policy positions and/or they wanted more support for their adjacent but less extreme positions that actually ARE popular like reining in military spending and opposing the War on Terror.

Which brings me to:

“Why are progressives supporting the democrats’ pro military stance? Why aren’t we canceling Kamala and Waltz for catering to the pro military crowd?”

Because you people have had eight years to make yourselves useful and support progressive policies and politicians and you keep NOT VOTING and LOUDLY ANNOUNCING you won’t vote for the sake of moral purity and refusing to back candidates who would improve people’s rights and allowing conservatives to get elected for the sake of “not being complicit in your own oppression”, proving this is a lot more about adhering rigidly to abstract principles and feeling good about yourself for it than actually HELPING anyone. The rest of the left has determined you’re not useful idiots but are in fact quite useless. As such, they’re done humoring you. I say “they” because I never made any of this a secret. You can die on the anti-military hill if you want but we were NEVER going to die with you. You will go down alone and we will move on without you hanging like a millstone around our necks. Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

“How can you call yourself a leftists if you don’t hate the military or militaries as a concept?”

Tell me you don’t know anything about leftism without telling me you don’t know anything about leftism. There are LOADS of left wing ideologies that aren’t pacifist. Most communist groups are rather favorable towards militaries as a way to fight for communism. The left’s opposition to militaries as a concept comes from the counterculture movement of the 60s and is only popular in countries where left-wing politics are associated with counterculture movements. Any time Communist or Socialist parties became a ruling party, the idea that the military could be used to fight FOR the cause as well as against it has set in. In fact, most Communist revolutions had substantial factions of the nation’s military supporting it.

Now, I am not a tankie. I have nothing but disdain for Stalin and his imitators or the CCP and its puppets. I believe these are examples of abject failures to build socialism and most revolutionaries followed their lead, leaving leftwing parties that formed coalitions with liberals the most successful so far. However I see no basis whatsoever for saying that Lenin and his ilk failed BECAUSE he didn’t decide to oppose the concept of a standing military. That is one of the things they did right.

The left being strictly anti-war even in the West, while ultimately based on the idea of unity and peace once communism is built, only became as common as it is during the Cold War where the majority of wars were fought AGAINST the left. In WWII, the left was large PRO entering the war while the RIGHT was advocating for peace (or to enter on the opposite side which was never going to happen) because we were planning on entering an alliance with the USSR and the Allies instead of the Axis Powers the far right nationalists supported. The writer of Jonny Got His Gun, Dalton Trumbo, for example, specifically refused to have his book republished until after the war because he was a Socialist and heard right wing groups using it to oppose WWII. Trumbo was STAUNCHLY against this as he was criticizing the concept of conscript and the actual structure of the military rather than the concept of war, and did not believe his criticisms of WWI should be translated to WWII.

Leon Trotsky, leader of the biggest left opposition faction against Stalin, was also very much in favor of the Red Army, believing that the revolution had to be SPREAD, not that they should just build Socialism at home and leave everyone to their own devices. Socialism in One Country was Stalin’s platform to appease the west and also added many elements of right wing nationalism opposed by the original revolutionaries (whom he killed). While particularly gullible leftists saw Stalin as someone to rally behind due to his emphasis on self-determination and non-intervention, this rhetoric, like that of most dictators and militants, both left and right the isolationist tankie left loves to suck up to, was using this as the other side of his staunchly nationalist, authoritarian ideology that he used to justify countless atrocities against minorities in the USSR while also intervening just as much as the West did in foreign affairs.

TLDR: You are too much of a useful idiot to bad actors to be worth cooperating with, stop endorsing the PRC and Hamas while calling America evil for opposing them.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/university-elite-caught-playing-selective-free-speech/news-story/32561dd0c41fd0a2df6f4e20298ea46d

University elite caught playing ‘selective free speech’

By: Claire Lehmann

Published: Dec 15, 2023

Three Ivy League presidents made international headlines when they told a recent congressional hearing that calls for the genocide of Jews would only contravene their bullying and harassment policies “depending on the context”.

In response to their testimony – which went viral – wealthy individuals cancelled donations in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and one of the presidents, Liz Magill, has since tendered her resignation letter. Another scandal has erupted over Harvard president Claudine Gay, as it has emerged that she has quoted other scholars without citation (also known as plagiarism) throughout her career.

The scandal has been a PR fiasco worthy of study at Harvard Business School. And it is a sign that the Ivies are losing their prestige. But the reasons are complicated and belie any simple analysis.

In short, over the course of a few short decades, the universities presided over by these presidents have undergone a transformation in moral culture. At one time, they recognised everyone’s equal human dignity and held the principle of free speech as sacrosanct. However, they have now shifted towards elevating victimhood as the highest virtue while encouraging hypersensitivity to perceived injustice.

According to sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, victimhood culture – colloquially known as “wokeness” – emerged from America’s Ivies first before spreading outwards into mainstream society.

Like a poison apple, victimhood culture looks perfectly fine from the outside, encased in euphemisms such as “diversity”, “equity” and “inclusion”. But it has a toxic core.

Its toxicity emerges when people are encouraged to see themselves as perpetual victims, and are rewarded for nurturing and prosecuting endless grievances. It was on these campuses that this ideology first spread (among some of the most privileged people in the world) and it was there that its maxims were first put into practice. Protected groups were given special status through affirmative action and other forms of positive discrimination, and students in the humanities were taught to weigh “lived experience” over objective truth.

As these ideas took hold, they manifested in tangible ways within university settings. It has culminated in the past decade in the widespread use of trigger warnings, safe spaces and microaggressions. Young adults came to behave like divas at luxury resorts, rather than students expected to study and learn. This poisonous culture seeped out into the rest of the world. Into media, corporations and Silicon Valley, and spreading all the way to Australia’s shores.

But this is where it gets complicated. Slogans such as “There is only one solution, intifada revolution” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are protected by the First Amendment – even though they are threatening to many people. And in an ideal world, universities should be trying to adhere to the First Amendment. Freedom of expression is a foundational principle of the university.

Nevertheless, universities must grapple with the fine line between protected speech and incitement to violence. Do such chants as “From the river to the sea” cross the line? Reasonable people may disagree. What is not OK is the physical intimidation and harassment experienced by Jewish students around the world since October 7. Students have been punched and spat on. And students around the world, including in Australia, report feeling scared.

It’s worth engaging in a thought experiment here. If neo-Nazis marched through Harvard under banners with swastikas emblazoned chanting “Heil Hitler”, would the president of Harvard remind us that such chants need to be understood in “context”? Would she defend the free speech of neo-Nazis’? A genuine commitment to the First Amendment would require it. In reality, neo-Nazis would more likely be escorted off campus by security or police.

The problem is that the culture that created the concept of “microaggression” is now blind to very real macroaggressions against students attending its institutions.

But it’s a complex moral conundrum, because victimhood culture should be repudiated. It is a road to nowhere except grievance and conflict.

And, despite the very real instances of intimidation and assault, it would be a mistake for Jewish students to adopt a hypersensitive approach that interprets ambiguous messages as hostility.

Balancing the rejection of victimhood culture with fair treatment for Jewish students is not easy. A responsible administration would ensure all students are free from intimidation and the threat of physical and verbal attacks, while reminding students that they should expect to be made to feel uncomfortable in the classroom. The job of colleges is to keep students physically safe, while challenging them intellectually.

At the same time, however, it is only natural for beleaguered Jewish students to want to be treated fairly. Other student groups at colleges have successfully had statues removed, buildings renamed, academic events cancelled and speakers deplatformed, because of distant connections to slavery that they find offensive. Is it too much to ask people to stop chanting genocidal slogans in the days and weeks after a genocidal terrorist attack?

Such demands for fairness raise important questions about the treatment of different groups on campuses. If universities had consistently upheld the principles of free speech over the past two decades, scholars who investigate controversial questions related to sex and race differences would not have faced marginalisation.

Conservatives and pro-life advocates would have the freedom to host seminars for students, and feminists who argue that men cannot become women would not face deplatforming. Many other speakers whose views may be considered offensive to “woke” sensibilities would also be welcomed on campus. However, this hasn’t been the case, and universities are only now realising the importance of free speech when they find themselves in need of it.

The Ivies’ current dilemma is a consequence of their own making. They want to reject victimhood culture in this particular instance where they have failed a minority group that has legitimate grievances. However, to do so, they are appealing to principles that they abandoned long ago. In 2023, Harvard received the worst-ever free speech ranking for an American college (as judged by FIRE, an American legal non-profit).

The Ivies need to understand the principle of free speech is not one that can be applied selectively. It applies to everyone, or it does not apply at all.

[ Via: https://archive.is/KoC6v ]

--

[brentnhunter]

**Principle: Dedication and Commitment** **Description:** Dedication and commitment are foundational principles that influence our relationships with ourselves and others, our work, and the vibrant tapestry of life itself. At its core, dedication involves an unwavering resolve to pursue our objectives, often necessitating profound faith and persistence. Life presents challenges, but through commitment, we align ourselves with the universal forces that facilitate change and achievement. Too often, individuals divert their energies into someone else's agenda, neglecting their own goals, families, and personal growth. This imbalance can lead to feelings of dissatisfaction and disconnect. When we show dedication to ourselves, the nature of our commitments can inspire trust and foster a reciprocal commitment in others. Honoring our promises not only reinforces self-trust but also encourages community trust, which is vital for any relationship. A crucial aspect of this principle is understanding the importance of adapting our approaches to problem-solving. Insanity is often defined as doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different outcomes. Dedication calls for flexibility—we must be open to exploring various paths toward our goals. Embracing this dynamic mindset is essential, for obstacles can often be navigated creatively. **Common Ground:** Dedication and commitment represent a universal truth that transcends cultural, geographical, and ideological boundaries. No matter who we are or where we come from, we all desire meaningful connections and fulfilling lives. This principle resonates with every individual because commitment is a collective need; it lays the foundation for trust and cooperation, both in personal relationships and globally. **Importance:** This principle is vital because it reminds us that our efforts, rooted in dedication, generate a meaningful impact not just on ourselves but also on those around us. It encourages a sense of agency and responsibility, urging us to shape our environments consciously rather than merely reacting to them. **Examples:** In personal life, an example of dedication is setting aside time each week for self-reflection or skill development. When we commit ourselves to personal growth, it fosters a sense of achievement and harmony within, allowing us to contribute more effectively to our relationships. Collectively, dedication can manifest in community initiatives, such as volunteering for local causes. When individuals commit their time and resources, the ripple effects create stronger, more resilient communities that thrive on collaboration and support. **Thoughts to Ponder:** How do you express dedication in your own life? What commitments are you willing to deepen to enhance your relationships and community? Please share your experiences or insights below, and consider helping those around you by liking and sharing this article! To learn more about universal principles, check out The Rainbow Bridge (https://www.amazon.com/Rainbow-Bridge-Inner-Peace-World/dp/099120641X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&dib_tag=AUTHOR&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.M5q6j50C2_D-OLp6jbA_4-r8UWBrQJOhBkV8i9kDdRLA_oXo08HXy2tjXzCBU4GZBp1SlMMvqGATjSjBGpi4s3NG4VKAE2L3EaExvre-PpE.xF97v7eYOXkqs-4vKA7r7yr_lJ-o3riEj-Nld4LhZIc&sr=). Want to start your day with high energy, positivity, and enthusiasm? To receive an extra special dose of positive and uplifting energy in the mornings and throughout the day, feel free to check out http://TheDailyEnergizer.com.

[zolo1917]

The Critique of the Foundations of the Hegelian Dialectic

The Critique of the Foundations of the Hegelian Dialectic

The Marxist conception of the dialectic has often been challenged. Max Eastman, for instance, considered it a form of religious thought. However, the dialectic has only been the object of a negative critique. Those who criticized it acted as simple destroyers. They failed to see that by removing the dialectical method from proletarian ideology, they removed the blood from the body; they ignored this because Hegelianism, in whatever form, was incompatible with their ordinary conceptions. Thus, the Marxist dialectic was treated with the same repugnance as the Hegelian dialectic in general.

A new way of conceiving the Hegelian dialectic begins with Nicolai Hartmann's critique, where it is possible to find elements of a true positive critique. Hartmann's indications, as presented in an article in the Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, express in concise form a direction that is of great interest to Marxist studies. Hartmann examines the different dialectical themes developed in Hegel's philosophy and compares them from the standpoint of their bases and forms. He seeks to distinguish those themes justified by experience from those that have only verbal value. For example, he criticizes the famous theme of being and nothingness.

Hartmann's critique differs fundamentally from the Marxist critique. For Marx and Engels, the dialectic is the general law of fundamental reality, with nature or matter substituted for logic, leading to antithetical development of the universe. Hartmann, on the other hand, methodically tests the value of dialectical reasoning in particular cases, setting aside universality and focusing on areas where the dialectic is justified by lived experience.

One must recognize that Marx and Engels themselves felt the necessity of a labor similar in principle to Hartmann's. Although they aimed to give dialectical conceptions the character of general laws of nature, Engels attempted to provide these laws with experimental value through his study of the natural sciences. However, Hartmann's a posteriori approach contrasts with Engels' a priori method.

Scientists have generally viewed the dialectical construction of relations as incompatible with scientific methods. Hegel himself indicated that nature, by its inability to adhere strictly to the Notion, sets limits to philosophy. Nature was seen as a negation, a revolt, and an absurdity, making it unreasonable for Hegel to seek the foundations of dialectical laws in the study of nature.

Engels' efforts to develop a dialectical theory of nature ultimately faced significant challenges. The substitution of nature for logic in post-Hegelian philosophy became problematic. Today, a new experimental justification of the dialectic is necessary, focusing on the immediate terrain of class struggle rather than universal conceptions.

Engels' attempt to apply the dialectic to the natural sciences, which took eight years and resulted in the second preface to the Anti-Dühring, was not fully successful. This endeavor was often seen as conflicting with the development of modern mathematics and science, which sought to eliminate contradictions and achieve absolute rigor.

In the realm of mathematics, what Engels considered progress was seen by mathematicians as a degeneration. The development of infinitesimal calculus, based on contradictory notions, eventually led mathematicians like Gauss, Abel, and Cauchy to strive for absolute rigor and eliminate logical inconsistencies. Despite Engels' recognition of contradictions in mathematics, mathematicians succeeded in removing these contradictions.

Overall, mathematics evolved to prioritize logical rigor and non-contradiction, contrary to Engels' program. Any new difficulties, such as those in set theory, are approached with the same effort to resolve contradictions, further distancing the field from dialectical thought.

The dialectic does not express the nature of mathematics; it applies to the agent of scientific activity, not the object. The essential theme is to understand the limits of dialectical thought and its fruitful application. As Plekhanov noted, the powerful and fruitful influence of Hegel on moral and political science underscores the importance of understanding and applying dialectical reasoning within its proper context.

The Critique of the Foundations of the Hegelian Dialectic

The application of the dialectic to the sciences and the implied sterility of this method when applied to the natural sciences aligns with the principles in Hartmann's argument, which sought a specific domain for the dialectic. Plekhanov didn't foresee a limit, but he recognized the unique privilege of moral and political sciences—what Hartmann calls "sciences of the spirit." This term is relatively precise, but terminology shouldn't prejudice the nature of the object within a more or less homogeneous group of sciences. No precise limitation can be predetermined.

Hartmann's detailed analysis will help further determine the application of the dialectic. His analysis separates dialectical developments representing lived experience from those that are mere remnants of dead flesh. This investigation extends to recent scientific developments, posing numerous subsidiary problems. The task appears unlimited, and the results of such analyses are unlikely to coincide with initial intentions.

A long, systematic elaboration can lead to a readaptation of general conceptions. The exact point where dialectical thought starts to express real relations must be determined case by case. For instance, the biological development of a man—from infancy to old age—cannot be explained by simple opposition of terms. However, psychological development from a psychoanalytic perspective reveals that a human is initially limited by paternal prohibitions, resulting in unconscious desires for the father's death. This negativity eventually necessitates the son's assumption of the father's role, destroying the negativity that defined him.

This theme is important because it reflects an experience lived by each human being, making the terms of dialectical development elements of real existence. From this example, several problems can be defined, indicating the orientation for the introduction of a dialectic of the real.

The theme of father and son demonstrates that nature has not been replaced by a separate domain. Psychoanalytic phenomena can be reduced to somatic drives, eliminating the need for a matter-spirit dualism. The objects of dialectical investigation are the most complex products of nature, and spiritualism must be set aside.

Nature hasn't been abandoned for unrelated phantoms. A mode of thought founded on lived experience, rather than direct study of nature or pure logic, might still apply to understanding nature. The first condition for this application is recognizing the limits posed by the method's origin, implying that simpler forms of nature could be studied using facts from the most complex.

In practice, a difference emerges between a method based on natural sciences and a dialectic with historical roots in lived experience. In the natural sciences, opposing terms are neutral, but in valuable dialectical examples, negativity has specific value. The fundamental themes of the Marxist conception of history fall into this category, introducing negative forces or actions into tactics as means demanded by historical development. This characteristic is crucial for the suppleness and power of Marxism, opposing reformist solutions and making it the living ideology of the modern proletariat.

This class, condemned by the bourgeoisie to negative existence, now bases its revolutionary activity on creating a new society.

[civicsavvy]

Justice Over Retaliation: Upholding Impartiality in America’s Political Landscape

The statement attributed to a Trump ally warning New York Attorney General Letitia James underscores the intense conflicts within the American legal and political landscape. Such rhetoric highlights the tension between political opponents, raising questions about justice, accountability, and political power in the U.S. This essay will analyze the implications of such a statement, examining the broader issues surrounding the relationship between politics and the judiciary, the potential consequences of escalating threats, and the need for a commitment to impartial justice in public office.

Political Rivalries and the Legal System

The American legal system is structured to operate independently of political influence, with judicial offices meant to uphold laws impartially, regardless of political affiliation. However, high-stakes legal cases involving political figures can strain this ideal. Letitia James, in her role as New York’s Attorney General, has pursued various investigations and lawsuits against Donald Trump, citing alleged financial misconduct and violations of state laws. Her actions have led some Trump allies to argue that her efforts are politically motivated—a claim that has only intensified with statements like the one attributed to a Trump ally about imprisoning her.

When legal processes become intertwined with political rivalry, public trust in impartiality can erode. Statements threatening legal action against officials, if politically motivated, risk undermining the judicial system’s credibility. For democracy to function effectively, citizens must trust that judicial actions are based on evidence and law, rather than personal or political agendas. Threats of retaliation against a public official, particularly from a position of anticipated power, place additional strain on the perception of fairness, challenging the very foundations of democratic governance.

The Escalation of Rhetoric and its Consequences

Statements threatening to imprison political figures represent an escalation in political rhetoric, signaling a shift from debate to more extreme confrontations. When political leaders and their allies use aggressive language, it can set a precedent that normalizes hostility in public discourse. Such language has consequences beyond the immediate political conflict—it can impact the public’s attitude toward government institutions and legal processes. In a society already divided along ideological lines, threats and inflammatory statements serve only to deepen those divisions, fostering an environment where political retribution becomes expected.

The risk is that such rhetoric might encourage individuals within the public to lose respect for the rule of law, seeing it as a tool for punishment rather than justice. Once political disagreements cross into threats of imprisonment based on affiliation, it becomes challenging to maintain a healthy, functioning democracy where leaders are judged by their policies and actions rather than by their political allegiances. The consequences of escalated rhetoric, therefore, go beyond individual cases and threaten to undermine democracy’s checks and balances.

Accountability, Justice, and Impartial Governance

For a nation founded on principles of justice and equality under the law, statements that suggest imprisonment based on political affiliation contradict these ideals. True accountability means ensuring that any public official, regardless of party, faces justice impartially if evidence supports wrongdoing. Politically motivated investigations or retaliatory statements that seek punishment based on political beliefs rather than facts distort this principle.

Public officials must work to uphold standards of impartiality, particularly in highly charged cases involving political figures. When politicians or their allies make threats, it raises doubts about whether officials can act independently without fear of political retribution. Such independence is essential to a functioning democracy and for maintaining citizens’ trust that justice is administered fairly and without favoritism.

Restoring Public Trust in the Legal System

To address the challenges posed by politically charged statements and actions, both parties must recommit to principles of fair and impartial governance. This may include reforms to ensure greater transparency and accountability within judicial processes, especially in cases involving high-profile figures. Ensuring that investigations and trials are based on evidence and legal merit, rather than political aims, is essential to restoring public faith in these institutions.

Additionally, political leaders on all sides have a responsibility to use language that promotes respect for the law, rather than language that might undermine it. Calls for de-escalation and a renewed focus on evidence-based investigations could help bridge some of the existing divides. Respectful discourse not only strengthens public trust but also sets a standard for future generations.

Conclusion: The Importance of Upholding Justice Over Retaliation

Threats of imprisonment based on political motives reflect a dangerous shift toward a retributive approach in politics that could weaken democratic institutions. Ensuring justice and accountability means evaluating individuals and their actions based on evidence, not ideology or affiliation. To preserve the integrity of the legal system, political figures and their allies should exercise restraint, recognizing that the rule of law depends on impartiality.

By respecting these principles, political leaders and officials can foster an environment where justice is both fair and impartial. Refraining from threats or retaliation against political rivals would serve to strengthen American democracy, allowing for an atmosphere where genuine accountability can thrive without the specter of politically motivated retribution.

[dasrupesh]

Polytricks

          Politics is polytricks because you perform many tricks in politics.You live to do politics and you do politics to survive.But,infact you exist to do politics and you do politics to exist.You always do politics all the time as if there is political gene in your genome and as if politics is life.In fact,politics is not the life and life is not the politics.Life is beyond the political sphere.Human is a political animal,that's why he does politics in bed,in home,in workplace,in the society and ultimately in the world in large scale.You can't live without doing politics,that the reason why you join certain organization and political party.You follow some leader and certain political ideology.You incline and align to those things which goes according to your mind orientation.You follow what suits you.You follow the thing which is right for you.The right for your mind set up may be wrong for others and the wrong for others can be right for you.It all depends.The right and wrong are tangential and relative entities.The right and wrong depends upon the thinking.The basis of ethics must not come from any belief systems or any other kind of systems but should come from the spontaneity and circumstances of life.The ethics can't be rigid because life is not rigid and stagnant.Life is in continuous flux which keeps on changing each minute and each day.Life can't be constricted and confined in the walls of belief systems and some moral ethical systems.The meat eaters says that non meat eaters are wrong and the vegetarians say that non vegetarians are wrong.Theists say atheists are wrong and atheists say theists are wrong.One ideology says other ideologies are wrong.One creed says other creeds are wrong.Right and wrong is relative and tangible.One says other is wrong because you decide right and wrong according to your perspective and understanding.Your perspective judges right and wrong.Killing other creature is definitely the violence and inhuman activity.The ethical narrative should be non violence and should be of love because you must treat others as you wanna be treated by others.For some violence is right and for some it's wrong.Voilence and war can never be considered right.Voilence can never be the way and solution of misunderstandings among people and among ideologies.Mutual understanding and mutual peace from.both sides should be solution.

           The thing which harms the life and the world is wrong and the thing which does good to the life and the world is right.The right thing which is good to life leads to good ethics and the thing which is wrong to life leads to wrong ethics.The jurisprudence and ethics are not the same everywhere in the world but they differ from nation to nation because you created it.You create your laws for life and principles in life and in the society.You can't create natural laws and principles but rather you are under the law of nature and her principles.Humans eat almost all other creatures and draws the line of ethics which is absurd and pathetic.You do wrong and make the line of morality and teach morality.You also do good and write the principles of ethics.There are good and bad people,that why there is good and bad politics and good and bad ethical behaviours.You decide what is ethical and unethical according to your belief systems,cultural systems,social systems and many more systems which exists.Politics is in your blood and you play the polytricks to survive doing the politics.Politics should be for betterment of individual,humanity and for the world but rather must not be for pulling someone down and destroying others.The system which doesn't lift the human condition towards ascendancy and betterment of life can not be considered good politics at all and must be rejected by the people and the world.The formation of government and political parties should be by the people and for the people because people is more powerful than the government and parties.People should not be afraid of government but government should be afraid of people.Goverment controls people and society with the bunch of arsenals but people are bigger arsenal than the governmental arsenal.The power flows more from the people and is stronger than the barrel of the arsenal of government.Democracy should be the pillar of political and governmental system.The leader who does politics for his personal benefit is a selfish politician who thinks betterment only for himself and his family which is not the ground and basis of politics because politics is for the betterment of people.The politics is for governance of the people and the nation and should be for betterment for such but rather not for the degradation.In the home,you do politics with your wife,children and other family members.You do politics for the promotion of your designation in your workplace.In society,you do politics fo be recognized.

           The base of your political endeavors lies in money,designation,recognition, applauds and respects.You are hungry for wealth,recognition and respect.The achievements of these parameters satisfies your never satiating ego.You do politics for the mate.You are not out of politics but you are in political frame where you play games.You do politics to get awards and medals.You do politics to reach the top of the ladder.You do politics to throw others out of the game.You do politics to attack and kill others.You do politics to grab someone's land and wealth.The nation does politics to expand it's borders.You don't have to do politics to love others,you do love and sacrifice in the absence of politics.You don't have to do politics to save and to care others,you just do it without politics and polytricks.Politics has become most dirty word in the vocabulary because of the dirty minds.Actually,politics is the strategy of strategies for betterment and ascendance.Politics is the highest strategy.Beautiful mind don't do dirty politics.Sacred soul is not after politics but he is after love,care and service.Even you do politics with your wife with whom you spend the life in close proximity.You do politics to get your desired job.You do politics to earn more money.You surround yourself with the political animal and do polytricks so that you can rise more and achieve more.The one who survives and rises alone without doing politics is the real man and the son of man.You choose the political system and follow it for the hope to get some benefit from the political leader otherwise you won't follow because you are selfish being.There are rare ones who does service to the people and to the society.Most politicians does for themselves.Life is all about give and takes.You take something by giving something and you give something by taking something.The purpose of governmental political system is to govern people through certain systems and to have a order in the society and thus in the country otherwise the nation will be in chaos.Autocratic,dictatorial and feudal systems suppresses and dictates the life of people.According to your mind setup and according to your orientation of your thoughts, you choose the political system and do politics.Like minded follow like minded things and systems.The cats can't be in the group of dogs.The horses can't be in the group of oxes.You should not do polytricks but rather do better harmless politics.

Email: dasrupesh22@gmail.com