marjaerwin | Entries tagged with current events

Slavery and genocide against black people, Jewish people, Rroma people, Rohingya people, various American Indian peoples, and so on, are all racist.

If your definition can't include this violence, and similar violence, change your definition!

"It's not racist, because Muslims/immigrants/etc. are not a race" fails that test. Or similar claims that it's not racist if it's not about biological categories. But biologically, we're all Homo sapiens sapiens, and there are no coherent racial groupings within Homo sapiens sapiens. For example, black people are not a race either. Now the original Klan and the original Nazis didn't know that there aren't coherent racial categories, but they invented their categories out of power structures (such as the one drop rule) and out of pseudohistory (such as the "Aryan race" where early 20th century anthropology suggested Mediterranean, Nordic, and Alpine types, possibly spreading from Central Asia in successive waves). So "only about biological categories" can't include the above violence.

"love it or leave it" isn't necessarily racist, but it is a kind of totalitarian nationalism, it's intended to silence dissent, and it's cruel to people who are unable to "leave it"... most people, especially disabled people.

"go back where you came from" is definitely xenophobic, and again, it's cruel to people who have escaped danger and/or found a home and/or just want to live their lives.

"it's not racism, it's just capping immigration" is again xenophobic, and cruel.

"it's not anti-immigrant, it's just anti-[slur for undocumented immigrants]," is again xenophobic, and cruel.

It's worth noting that many Jewish refugees were unable to escape Nazi Germany because of immigration restrictions, and hostility towards "illegal immigrants." For example, the Franks were refused entry to the United States, and settled in the Netherlands.

It's also worth noting that immigration restrictions in the United States, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the Klan-backed 1924 Immigration Act, have been explicitely racist, and the latter was also explicitely eugenicist. The 1952 and 1965 revisions haven't been as racist. But xenophobia is no better, And both xenophobia and racism have led to anti-immigrant violence such as the Olathe shooting, the Squirrel Hill massacre, the Christchurch Massacre in New Zealand, deportations, child separation (which is also against the Genocide Convention), and concentration camps.

And whether you call it racism or ethno-nationalism, targeting ethnic minorities is wrong.

Current Mood: aggravated

Impeachment runs into 2 problems-- 1st it has to get through the senate, where the rotten boroughs protect entrenched interests more than in the house. 2nd it doesn't change the system which has created the problem.

First, Trump’s using the justice department to compile enemies lists, starting with the subpoena against Disrupt J20, which targets 1.3 million people.

Second, Trump’s using the bogus voter fraud commission to collect voter lists and disenfranchise people. Russian hackers also targetted voter lists.

With sufficiently extensive enemies lists, the Trump administration would know even more about whom to purge from the voter lists to protect their power.

Third, Trump’s bothsiderism condemns anti-Nazi organizing, enables neo-Nazi violence, and blames survivors of neo-Nazi violence.

With this combination, there’s no reason to expect to be able to vote Trump out in 2020. More Americans already voted to keep him out in 2016. How has that worked out?

Global warming and ocean acidification are a major threat to our current civilization.

I can understand disagreement about whether it is happening, though there's accumulating evidence that it has been happening due to increasing CO2 concentrations, and I can understand disagreement about what to do about it, since there're so many challenges.

I can't understand the mindset that leads some people to drive in circles during Earth Hour, to cancel out other people's not using as much energy during Earth Hour.

(Spite isn't always a bad thing, but it often is.)

Anyway, there's a leaked draft of an encyclical from the Roman pope, regarding global warming. Anyway, this has attracted a lot of anti-environmentalist comments arguing that either he is a dupe, or he is a secret Marxist, or he is Teh Antichrist revealed in Revelation.

(Although Revelation was controversial among early Christians, so why do so many anti-Roman-Catholics consider it canonical?)

Now what worries me is that this cultural-religious movement against environmentalism isn't likely to help find better solutions to environmental problems, is likely to enable continued fossil fuel subsidies, is likely to hurt efforts to stop carbon pollution, isn't especially unlikely to fuel political-religious violence against envoronmental activists, and is quite likely to enable state violence against environmental activists.

So now I'm seeing condemnations of Snowden and of whistleblowing based on condemnations of conscience. It's unthinkable, but it's right here: http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/24891461

Would we be human without our consciences?

It's what drives us to try to do the right thing and try to understand what is the right thing. One cannot oppose moral reasoning to conscience, because moral reasoning is rooted in conscience. It's one of the things that makes moral reasoning different from moralization and sophistry.

You could ask them to imagine having innocent things to hide, such as being trans or lesbian or bi or gay and having to hide this from homophobic parents and/or bosses, or being a survivor and having to hide this from anyone who might be a compulsive victim-blamer, or being an activist [though all too many people think concern for humanity is treachery to any given country].

I’m amazed at the arguments authoritarians are trotting out to defend the surveillance state. Sometimes they just call critics “anti-American,” “paranoid,” the “enemy,” and “traitors who should be hanged,” (sic) but sometimes they produce truly stunning works of duckspeak.

I don’t recall who argued that “Every government has a right to keep secrets.” I’ve already noted that this is incompatible with the liberal idea that the state exists by the consent of the governed.

But now David Brooks has announced that “For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures.”

Now it seem obvious to me that, for a free society to exist, we must distrust power and distrust powerful institutions.

There’s an extended example, including the traditional hate before the duckspeakquote, here: http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/24244425

See also: http://marjaerwin.livejournal.com/48649.html [The persecution of Breanna Manning and the incoherence of American Centrist ideology]

Since some of my friends have asked -

1. I know that non-participation isn’t a solution, but I consider participation in American electoral politics a form of participation in violence. Historically, many electoral assemblies have been army assemblies. I want to work towards freedom, not a comitia centuriata, nor a tribal assembly manipulated by reiks and their household soldiers.

2. I don’t have all the necessary documentation. I can’t get everything sorted out under state law.

3. Otherwise I might consider holding my nose and defensively writing in Jill Stein, or perhaps protest writing in Breanna Manning. I think Stein’s prejudiced against autistic folks, but not as badly as Roseanne Barr is prejudiced against trans folks. Barack Obama has a wretched record on civil rights, has continued the wars, has targeted whistleblowers, and so on.

4. I think the voting system is irrepairably corrupt and disenfranchises too many people. Al Gore betrayed his voters and his country by taking a fall twelve years ago, and his actions allowed the problems to continue to get worse. George Bush and the Supreme Court also betrayed this country. And yet somehow people blame Ralph Nader.

There has been an ongoing epidemic of violence against lgbt people. I know this. I've been bashed for being different; people are getting bashed, raped, and killed, for being lgbt. This has been especially severe in the District of Columbia: http://dctranscoalition.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/todays-dc-council-hearing-on-hate-crimes/

Peter Sprigg, a researcher for the Family Research Council, has called for violence against lgbt people, including criminalization of lesbian and gay people.

Richard Floyd, a Tenessee politician, has called for violence against lgbt people, including criminalization and murder of trans people.

And the Family Research Council has also opposed resolutions condemning the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda. [Update: Also, Tony Perkins has defended the "Kill the Gays" bill: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/tony-perkins-in-2010-said-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill-upholds-moral-conduct/politics/2012/08/17/46846 ]

So at times the Family Research Council has called for violence against lgbt people, and has opposed calls to end the violence against lgbt people, in a climate where lgbt people face ongoing violence, discrimination, and threats from politicians.

P.S. Now they are threatening to sue the Southern Poverty Law Center for classifying them as a hate group, because they think the classification may have contributed to one act of violence against them. By that standard, they would open themselves to being sued for demonizing lgbt people, because their demonization has contributed to uncounted acts of violence against us.

P.P.S. And calling out hate is not calling for violence. If you can't tell the difference, you need help.

Another lesbophobic bashing in the news, this time in Tennessee... another male Myrmidon mass cheering on the violence, calling for more, and condemning the victim... it makes me sick.

We need to stop this violence, and we need to stop the victim-blaming. So many of us have already suffered violence that one attack can trigger many womyn, and a few attacks can intimidate many more. And the victim-blaming teaches us to be ashamed and to keep quiet. It keeps us isolated when we need each other. It keeps us from supporting each other. We are not alone. There are tens of millions of womyn [and also men] in this country alone who have survived bashings or rapes or other attacks. I'm sure many of you have. There are more of us than of our attackers, so we can isolate them where they have isolated us. Where to begin?

It looks like the arrests in Cleveland and Chicago are more frame-up jobs. After all, there is a very long history of these frame-up jobs, from Haymarket through CoIntelPro to St. Louis. And the press goes along with the story. When the police tell reporters that gazpacho soup is "pepper spray," it's easy enough to suspect that they are telling reporters that beer-making equipment is "Molotov cocktails."

Now first of all the centrists and rightists denounce the accused and denounce all anarchists. They say we're violent. They are the ones who believe violence and domination are a just social order, and they say we're violent. Many of them are calling for violence against us. One said he'd take me down with a rock, and 'joked' about raping me or raping another activist womon.

Second, there are those rushing to declare the guilt of those accused, yet insisting we ought to assume the innocence of the police departments. *facepalm* On one side you have people, who may be [are being] railroaded. One another side you have institutions, ruling institutions, with a history of railroading people. There is no equivalence!

People deserve the benefit of the doubt. Institutions do not. And the more powerful the institution, the more important it is to challenge it and hold it to scrutiny.

Third, there are those saying the frame-up in St. Paul was not a frame-up, saying that the people accused there were guilty of 'terrorism' and let off with 'a slap on the wrist.' I suppose it would help to gather resources to debunk this.

American Centrists, Fascists, and other authoritarians are calling for the murder of Breanna Manning, preferably without trial, and of many of her supporters.

One commented that:

"Well, as far as I am concerned you can disagree all you want to. However, it sounds like you agree with his [sic] treasonous [sic] conduct. Therefore I can only conclude that both of you should be shot out of hand."

EDIT: another just told me that:

"you are so right ,americans do have hatred for traitors like you. it only makes sense. to think that the government should have no secrets and everyone have access to all infomation is absurd.your arguments about government is also absurd. dont you ever think about the ramifications of what you write about?"

Many others have expressed similar attitudes.

But where other authoritarian nationalist movements are wrong because they start from bad premises, the American Centrists are wrong because they start from good premises and then ignore them.

The American government claims legitimacy based on the supposed 'consent of the governed.' But consent requires equality. As long as the government keeps secrets from the governed and has power over the governed, it does not have consent, and does not have legitimacy.

The American Centrists grant the government legitimacy based on the supposed 'consent of the governed.' Then they grant the American government unlimited secrecy and unlimited power because of its 'legitimacy,' though they may criticize other governments because of their lack of 'legitimacy.' The American Centrists insist, in particular, that the American government has an inherent right to keep secrets and the people, not the American people, and not the whole world's people, could possibly have a right to know what the American government is up to. The American Centrists have detached 'legitimacy' from its supposed grounding in consent and now use 'legitimacy' to support secrecy which makes consent impossible. They have liquified the ground they were standing on and are now sinking into.

So they attack Breanna Manning for sharing the secrets of the war machine. If she did what she is accused of, she is one of the outstanding heroes of our time.

But let's get to the accusations of treason:

First off, there's the legal definition, which requires the claim that the public is an enemy.

Second, there's the political definition, that of acting against a legitimate government. [I don't believe there are any]. But if the government keeps secrets from the public, it cannot have consent, and therefore cannot have legitimacy, and it is incoherent to claim 'treason' when someone reveals its secrets to the public.

Third, there is the religious definition, which refers to oath-breaking. Warrior bands dedicated to war gods such as Woþins/Woden/Odin or Mars/Mamers required oaths as part of their initiation. Each warrior would declare absolute loyalty to the other warriors. This helped separate the warriors from the civilian society and helped make the warrior bands into effective mercenaries, plunderers, and slave-raiders. The practice of oath-keeping has, I think, done little good and monstrous harm throughout history.

And when I see all these knee-jerk accusations of treason and calls for murder, I remember how, because of my opposition to war, I've been called anti-American, attacked, severely beaten, and I've gotten death threats. There is a very deep pit of hatred in this land.

@#$%

I just got banned from an alternate history board for pointing out that the Green Scare targeted non-violent activists and classified some groups' non-violent activism as terrorism. And that it turns a blind eye to racist hate groups murders. Apparently, they think criticizing the United States government means supporting terror.

Never mind that opposing terror, let alone opposing *all* violence, means opposing *any* empire, indeed *any* state.

Imperial statists accusing pacifist anarchists of supporting terror are worse than hypocrites.

Another user got banned for pointing out that the United States government used its political support after the 9/11 attacks to try to take control of oil-producing areas, namely Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack and had no 'weapons of mass destruction.'

All this is historical fact.

All this has to be swept into the memory hole.

The problem isn't one or another moderation mistake. The problem is that systemic doublethink has taken over the public discourse. Opposing violence becomes 'supporting terror.' Supporting violence is taken for granted, as long as it's the people at the top of the pyramid using violence against people at the base of the pyramid. Nonviolence, equality, love, these things are made meaningless.

Current Mood: angry, scared, and nauseous

She is being charged with doing what any humyn being should have done, in her place, and may face life imprisonment or execution for doing the right thing.

But so many people are saying she should be shot, and some are saying she shouldn't even be considered humyn, and that she should be shot and her supporters - all of us - should be shot.

And that's the nature of war and empire. It involves dehumanizing the other, and it involves dehumanizing one's self to serve the empire. I hate ideologies of national/racial loyalty, military loyalty, and oaths. All these things encourage us-and-them and despise our common humanity, and that's what war-mongers use these things for.

Ni aiþos, nih harjos, nih reiks, nih kaisar!

If the easiest way for the politicians to look tough is to kill an innocent human being, then they will. If the easiest way for those who want blood for blood is to kill an innocent human being, then they will do so. And human sacrifice is just one more sacrifice they are willing to make - on the altar of power, on the altar of revenge, on the altar of torture and murder. In the end we need to understand why so many people *want* brutal rulers, and why so many people want blood for blood.

http://www.bilerico.com/2011/08/trans_inmate_transferred_from_female_to_male_priso.php

What words can describe the situation? Those who hold power use rape, or enable it, as an instrument of power. This is why I do not trust any one or any institution with rule over others.

I don't know what happened.

I am not going to offer up another inevitably-embellished version of what happened.

I just want to say that not everyone can read minds. An awful lot of the commentary seems to assume that EG should have anticipated with RW was thinking, or should have inferred what RW was thinking from something she may have implied but not stated, from her tone of voice, or from her body language.

I hate to say this but some of you are establishing a standard that people without mind-reading skills are automatically creeps. We, people without mind-reading skills, deal with a world where we are judged as bad people, as morally inferior, as less worthwhile, as people who should be shunned and forced from society, as people who are less trustworthy, as something which should be wiped from existence. We are beaten for who we are.

Patriarchy in action:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/intimate/

http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/polish-government-proposal-submit-to-compulsory-gynecological-examinations-or-be-fired/

Cherryblossomlife also discusses the history of gynecology. And yes, I regard sexual assault under color of law as RAPE. In the Polish case, it is being called a public health measure, and only applies to womyn who are working in the above-ground economy. I'm not going to discuss the American case.

"There are women of every description
In this cruel world, as everyone knows.
Some are living in beautiful mansions,
Who are wearing the finest of clothes.

"There are blue-blooded queens and princesses
Who have charms made of diamonds and pearl;

"But the only and loveliest lady
Is the Rebel Girl

"Though the rulers have locked her in prison,
And intend to break down her mind,
Still her will and her conscience have woken
The hopes of her class and her kind.

"And the barons of terror are trembling
At the spite and defiance she'll hurl

"For the only and loveliest lady
Is the Rebel Girl"

Remember Brad Manning. I wish we knew her real name. Let her live to see freedom, and transition. Let all the walls around her fall, all the empires which have condemned her fall, and all the injustices they have done to her be set right.

The original poem was by Joe Hill. I've updated it for Brad Manning, and for every rebel girl. Maybe it will even reach her.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/07/03/bradley-mannings-arm.html

http://nymag.com/news/features/bradley-manning-2011-7/

I tend to write about community struggles, such as over gender, and why it's antifeminist, and avoid writing about worldwide injustices, such as war, ecocide, and torture.

But ecocide already affects us, and it is likely to have as much impact on our daily lives, in ten or twenty years, as patriarchy/misogyny has.

I think the difference is this: it's often other equally disempowered individuals wielding gender. It's easier to persuade some of these people, and easier to disarm the institution. But it's the ruling class wielding torture. It's useless to attempt to persuade these people. They respect each others' opinions. They give some credit to more prosperous' constituents' opinions, and they give only disrespect to our opinions. They also wish to protect the institution of torture, and they turn that institution against anyone who acts against them.

Brad Manning did the right thing, and they tortured him for it.

We could have a million Brad Mannings, but I wonder if they would all be imprisoned and the ruling-class murderers would still be unaffected.