Anglospherics

EMPOWERING MINORITY VOTERS:

Key Jeffries ally endorses aggressive tactics to create more blue seats (Riley Rogerson, 05/14/2026, Politico)

Asked specifically if he would be supportive of unseating Republicans by redrawing deep-blue New York City districts held by minority lawmakers, like his own, to extend instead into less diverse suburban areas, he said, “I’m going to win, but we’ve got to get more Democrats, also.”

“We’re going to have a level playing field,” added Meeks, the longtime leader of the Queens Democratic Party.

Forcing potential representatives to court their votes.

MAU-MAUING THE VERSE CATCHERS:

The Wrong Kind of Black Poet (Ernest Jesuyemi, May 04, 2026, Compact)

But something about the current drift of things is concerning. In 1946, George Orwell articulated some of the reasons in his essay “The Prevention of Literature.” “But what is sinister,” Orwell says, “is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most . . . The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves.”

It is sinister, especially, when looked at through poetry. Orwell believed that even under a climate of censorship, poets can thrive: “The destruction of intellectual liberty cripples the journalist, the sociological writer, the historian, the novelist, the critic, and the poet, in that order.” The poet is last on the list because tyrants do not have the sense to get what he is saying (or to care).

The dynamics have changed. Today, poets don’t only consider it their job to scream at “tyrants”; they not only make demands like thugs; more than that, they act like the Stasi, going around with tiny torchlights looking for racism and sexism in works of art.

Responding to a poem I shared with him, an American poet told me it was musically sound, but also added (parenthetically), “you’d have a hard time publishing a poem in the US with the word ‘whore’ in it. ‘Sex worker’ is what you have to say now, which of course is absurd and immediately ruins the poem.” (The “whore” is myself.) I have hawked the poem around and no one has taken it. Certain words can so trigger people now that choosing a word for how it rings next to another word has become a political act.

As Geoffrey Hill said of Shakespeare, the true poet knows what is justly and unjustly demanded of him, and finds his way around it. Every such challenge tasks his inventiveness; if he succeeds, his triumph is greater because of it. But if the eccentricity of a phrase, in the context of a poem, if the use of a word like “Negress” without the quotes in Dickman’s poem, is deemed too offensive to be read—what is to become of John Stuart Mill’s much-cherished “eccentricity of action,” which is fundamental to a liberal society? How are we to live if we cannot risk offense in a poem?

BREAKING THE BANTUSTANS IS DEMOCRATIC:

Poll: Democrats would give up Black voting power to beat the GOP (Erin Doherty, Andrew Howard and Riley Rogerson, 05/14/2026, Politico)

It’s a stunning admission from a Black lawmaker who represents a majority-Hispanic Los Angeles district: Defeating Republicans might be more important than protecting districts like hers.

And it’s a real possibility the party would have to deploy the tactic if it hopes to stand a chance against the most aggressive Republican gerrymandering possible. To draw House seats with the best margins for the party — especially in states like Illinois and New York — district lines would likely need to be altered in a way that packs large numbers of Black voters into red-leaning areas in order to make them bluer.

It’s not just a few Democrats switching their minds. Consider the Harris voters who initially say they would protect majority-minority districts: When asked about countering the GOP, they split roughly evenly, with 46 percent saying it’s more important to draw more blue seats and 41 percent saying the majority-minority districts should be kept together.

MIGA:

Political Islam Is Rank Populism That Perverts a Fundamentally Liberal Faith (Mohammed Nosseir, May 13, 2026, Unpopulist)

A critical distinction is therefore needed: Islam, the faith tradition, is categorically different than “Political Islam” or “Islamism,” which is fundamentally a political project. But opposing one does not mean opposing the other. In fact, we Muslims should be leading the charge against attempts to flatten our faith into a political agenda.


Political Islam, whose violent factions bear no true relation to the religion or to the vast majority of its adherents, rejects the core liberal principle that governments ought to promote the welfare of all citizens equally. In this respect, it shares much with populism and various strands of ethnonationalism. These movements determine a “true people”—defined by ethnicity, or adherence to a specific ideology or dogma—and treat those who fall outside that definition as second-class citizens at best and targets of active repression at worst.

Islamicists are their Integralists.

EXCEPT NORTHERN CALIFORNIA IS A SEPARATE COUNTRY:

Can California Be the Most Successful Country on Earth?: The State Should Lean Into Independence and Serve as America’s Western Firewall (Joe Mathews, May 12, 2026, Zocalo)

Look at the history of our independence. For decades, California has effectively operated with a level of economic, regulatory, and moral autonomy that rivals most sovereign nations. That autonomy is perhaps most visible on environmental matters.

California has established protections for endangered species and the coast (check out this terrific documentary) that go far beyond what the rest of the country provides. California has capitalized on waivers from the federal Clean Air Act—which allowed it to set tougher emissions standards to fight smog—to build its own highly skilled regulatory agencies.

The results are stunning. While the U.S. doubles down on coal and oil and gas, California’s power grid is increasingly powered by wind, solar, and battery storage, sometimes hitting 100% renewable usage. Electric cars have proliferated, tailpipe emissions have been controlled, and greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020 met. In 2024, California completed the largest removal of ecosystem-destroying dams in U.S. history on the Klamath River.

California’s independence also raises global standards. California has forged its own foreign policy, clinching treaties to boost trade and investment with China, Canada, Mexico, and various European countries. The state’s groundbreaking climate rules, now two decades old, have touched off similar planning in subnational and local governments worldwide.

Our commitment to independence benefits Californians in other areas, too. California has set its own, far-reaching labor regulation standards that treat gig workers and fast-food employees as citizens of a modern social democracy rather than economic cogs. California’s California Consumer Privacy Act effectively governs how Silicon Valley treats data worldwide. And when the federal government repealed “net neutrality” rules, California imposed its own law to prevent internet service providers from favoring specific content.

California is an essential independent force for human rights in an America that is abandoning those rights.

California is too large for optimal nation size.

THE GOOD DOCTOR:

Growling in a corner: Samuel Johnson’s lost years (Henry Oliver, May 04, 2026, The Common Reader)

He rarely got out of bed in the morning. When he did, it was often to read a book about depression. He paid a great deal of attention to his belly, not just to keep himself well-fed so he could work without distraction—he concocted, out of his knowledge of medicine and food, his own syrups of figs and orange peel to keep digestion regular. He had no ear for music, and little appreciation of the visual arts, but few could claim to be better read in Latin or in English. He rolled, twitched, gesticulated, squinted, touched himself compulsively; he took religion so seriously he would admonish people fiercely in the middle of conversation; sometimes his political views came out in sulking fits. The woman he is thought to have loved, who said he would have been a hero to his own valet, once rated his personality traits out of twenty: for religion, morality, and general knowledge, he scored twenty; for person and voice, manner, and good humour she gave him zero.

A supporter of women’s education and accomplishments, in an age of patronising patriarchy, he gave Latin lessons to girls and women of his acquaintance, read and complimented (by quoting from memory) the novels of women writers, promoted their work, advised them and helped them get published; but he treated women with the same contempt he treated men, and when Catherine Macaulay published her radical History of England, which was republican, he not only refused to read it, but got into the habit of making toasts in her name, mockingly, when a toast to the King was called for. This was the same King, who he once said, if the people of England could be fairly polled, would be sent out of England, and his adherents hanged.

He so loved the hierarchical order of society, he thought the King—chosen by Parliament, a German Elector, and thus not the direct descendant of James II—was not the true King. It is not known what he was doing in 1745, the year in which a rebellion by James II’s descendants was launched against the throne. He wrote anonymous pamphlets which were sympathetic to the rebels’ cause. Scholars of his work argue bitterly in petty tones about where he might have been, and what he might have been doing. After recording the details of a rant about the recent history of England’s kings, his biographer declines to keep adding details of the expostulation, and instead merely notes, “He roared with prodigious violence against George the Second.”

This man who so loved hierarchy was an abolitionist before the abolitionist movement. He once shocked the company at a university dinner by making his toast to “the next insurrection of Negroes in the West Indies.” He took in a twelve year old boy, a freed slave, and trained him as a servant, eventually leaving him the majority of his estate. This servant, Francis Barber, had gatherings of other free Black Britons at his house.

THE ONLY EXISTENTIAL THREAT IS INTERNAL:

Israel: What Went Wrong? by Omer Bartov review – the long view: An erudite account of the foundation of the state and its subsequent moral and political decline (Avi Shlaim, 9 May 2026, The Guardian)


The moral and political degradation of Israel is the subject of this remarkable book. The author, Omer Bartov, has impeccable credentials for writing it: he was born on a kibbutz, he served as an officer in the IDF, and is currently professor of holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University in the US. It is dedicated to his father, Hanoch Bartov, “the last Zionist”, a reference to the liberal brand of Zionism to which the whole family were evidently dedicated. Yet this book is written more in sorrow than in anger. Its goal is not to condemn Zionism but to explain its evolution from a dream to a nightmare.

To do so, Bartov goes back to the formation of Israel in 1948. In a chapter entitled The Missing Constitution, he bemoans the failure of the founding fathers to resolve the question of how a multi-ethnic state can remain both Jewish and democratic; in other words, their failure to square the circle of ethno-nationalism and pluralism.

Had a written constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence been adopted, he argues, and had generations of Israelis been raised with respect for the constitution and pride in a bill of rights for all human beings, “the creeping racism of Israeli society might have been tempered, and the astonishing indifference to the genocide being perpetrated in Gaza and the daily crimes and pogroms on the West Bank might have elicited a greater sense of scandal”. Maybe. History does not disclose its alternatives. Arguably, however, Bartov does not go back far enough in history to explore the roots of Israeli racism. Zionism is a self-avowed settler-colonial movement and its principal political progeny – the state of Israel – is a settler-colonial state. The logic of settler-colonialism is the elimination of the natives in order to take over the land and its resources. Ethnic cleansing is the means by which this goal is achieved. In 1948, the newly born state of Israel carried out the ethnic cleansing of Palestine: 750,000 Palestinians became refugees and the name Palestine was wiped off the map. This is what Palestinians call the Nakba, meaning “catastrophe”. From the point of view of the victims, the viciousness of Zionism is nothing new; they have known it all along.

Moreover, the Nakba was not a one-off event; it is an ongoing process.

MOURNING THE BANTUSTANS:

How Minority Districts Fueled the G.O.P.’s Southern Ascendancy in Congress (Carl Hulse, 5/08/26, NY Times)

The G.O.P. may find it more difficult to win in more diverse districts of the kind that existed before the reshuffling of maps prompted by the Voting Rights Act. […]


In the late 1980s, Republicans had been deep in the House minority for nearly 40 years. But growing dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party had begun moving white Southern conservatives into the Republican ranks, as illustrated by high-profile party switches in Washington. Then the redistricting initiated under a series of court decisions aimed at fostering more minority representation provided yet another opening that might have seemed counterintuitive at first glance.

Architects of the maps realized that if they could maximize Black and Hispanic representation in the new districts, they would simultaneously dilute Democratic strength in surrounding jurisdictions where coalitions of white and Black voters had elected white Democrats for decades. The shift would ultimately create dozens of openings for Republican candidates in what had formerly been known as Democrats’ “Solid South.”

Groups bankrolled by wealthy conservatives joined with liberal organizations to school minority advocacy groups in state capitals and in Washington about how to shape new districts to meet court tests and best guarantee the election of minority representatives for minority communities — an outcome that many on the left argued was long overdue. Republican groups even provided free access to expensive computer software that could craft the new districts. Democrats eagerly accepted the help.

Some civil rights figures such as Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat, warned at the time that the new maps could empower Republicans by weakening the partnership of progressive white and Black voters in the South. But others said the new districts were the only way to overcome centuries of institutional discrimination against minorities in the region.

“Gerrymandering was done to keep Black folks out,” Mr. Clyburn said. “If you gerrymander to keep them out, you’ve got to gerrymander to bring them in.”

It’s not racism when you ghettoize the vote?

NEVER “JUST TRUST THE SCIENCE”:

From India to Iran: How Hitler redefined ‘Aryan’ for Nazism: According to Nazi ideology, an ideal “Aryan” was blond, blue-eyed with athletic features. The term is still tied to Nazi Germany, but its origin lies elsewhere. (Suzanne Cords, May 5, 2026, Deutsche-Welle)

The racist reinterpretation of the term Aryan began in the middle of the 19th century. In his four-volume work “An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races,” French writer and diplomat Joseph Arthur de Gobineau divided humanity into three groups, the white, yellow and black races. His conclusion was that the white, Aryan original race was superior to the others, characterized by its “immeasurably superior intelligence,” and was destined to rule over the others. He also warned against “racial mixing,” as this would endanger both the quality of the Aryan original “race” and humanity as a whole.

Gobineau’s theory was largely ignored by his contemporaries but later found traction after being appropriated and altered to serve nationalist, far-right ideology. A large number of scientists and academics subsequently used Gobineau’s racial theory as a basis for their own writings on the subject.

“MY PERSONAL FAILURE MUST BE THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY!”:

The Serpent in the Garden: A.J.A. Woods’s history of the ‘cultural Marxism conspiracy’ (Matt McManus, May 4, 2026, Commonweal)

Woods, an intellectual historian, is interested in the role that conspiracy theories about cultural Marxism play on the right. He isn’t concerned about “refut[ing] all the claims that every critic of Cultural Marxism has made.” This is partly because so many of those claims are obviously not made in good faith. The people making them are not interested in accurately describing Marxism, cultural or otherwise. Even when critics of cultural Marxism are earnest, their theories are rarely intellectually substantive. What’s interesting is not the theories themselves but their strangely pervasive influence.

Woods shows how conservatives and far-right influencers like Paul Weyrich criticized the older American right for being “more interested in being right than winning power.” At a 2020 conference, William S. Lind, who effectively coined and popularized the term “cultural Marxism” in an American context, described its value to the right in affective rather than analytical terms. He argued that “cultural Marxism” works as a “delegitimizing tool in the United States, because many Americans regard anything even remotely Marxist as illegitimate.” As Woods writes, there was therefore no need to “quibble over definitions of Marxism or prove that political correctness is genuinely Marxist, because, as Lind claims, the American public does not generally care about these academic debates. Do not waste your time on research, Lind counsels.” The term “cultural Marxism” is best understood as a floating signifier under which the right lumps a vast array of disparate phenomena to undermine their credibility. Woods puts it well early in the book: “The elements of cultural Marxism/s have been deconstructed and reconfigured time and time again as reactionary political forces across the world search for new ways to justify their opposition to equality, democracy, and justice.”