(I wrote this awhile ago. I’ve modified it for release on here)

I left a comment of outrage at a right-wing Christianist blog. I am not really interested in linking to them, because I don’t want to have a flame war. This post raises philosophic questions about when kindness is and isn’t justified. Feel free to debate it on here!

Here is my comment:

“You’re making an illogical appeal to emotion by linking to the video. The fact that abortion may look ugly or evoke ill feeling does not mean that a fetus is not a part of a woman’s body. Scientific fact and reason trump the mystically justified cruelty of a God who appears to be a sadist.

By the way, STOP psychically-emotionally abusing your children by scaring the crap out of them. That is NOT something to be proud of. I don’t give a flying fuck what your “heavenly” source tells you.

I would kindly attempt to appeal to your reason, but I fear you’ve abandoned that in favor of fanatical faith in divine authority. If you thought God told you to murder your own children, would you do it? If not, then you’re admitting there is a source of ethical truth separate from heavenly authority. It’s called the power of the human mind to discern reality.

Stop reading the Bible and read Alice Miller on how parenting based on fear-psychological manipulation and so on hurts children

http://www.alice-miller.com/index_en.php

Not that I expect you to care. After all, you’ve abandoned love of liberty or independence in favor of quaking in your boots about what an alleged sadist in heaven might do to you for daring to be happy in a way they disapprove of.

I wish you political defeat and social isolation.

Good day.”

This woman wanted to execute abortionists and adulterers. She also spoke of raising her children with the fear of the lord. This constitutes emotional abuse. This is the voice of the American Taliban speaking.

Fidel Castro finally decided to step down from his position of power in Cuba. Not surprisingly, the nation’s aspiring leaders of the odious American Empire decided to give the world their thoughts on the subject.

Once again, we were treated to proof of Arthur Silber’s thesis that the American political establishment believes it’s ordained to rule the world and decide what political-economic system every country must have. It was just another sickening spectacle in the history of American politics. Another example of how the U.S. elites see everyone’s life as expendable in pursuit of their geopolitical goals.

The usual apologetics about having to create a “free Cuba” were thrown around. Right, I really believe that the U.S. cares to export anything resembling genuine freedom to Cuba. Castro may be a tyrant, but why would I want American style fascistic state capitalism to overtake the country?

We were also treated to apologia for the embargo that played up the obvious “fact” that ending it would simply help Castro. Forgive me, but I didn’t know that the U.S. government was entitled to decide who is and isn’t worthy of support in this world. Furthermore, this is simply holding hostage the freedom of Americans and Cubans to trade with each other, to the U.S. political objective of seeing the current regime in Cuba end. Like the murderous trade sanctions on Iraq, the U.S. doesn’t give a damn about how many lives it destroys in the pursuit of its political objectives.

Who, in fact, does the Cuban embargo help?

Does it help the development of a black market in Cuba? You know, something that actually corresponds to liberty. Every politician talks about a free Cuba, but they don’t believe that Cubans and Americans should be allowed to freely trade with each other. Is it any wonder that large parts of the world seem to take a disliking to the U.S. government? They are odious hypocrites.

Does it help two lovers who are separated by a great distance? Who need to visit each other in Cuba, and spend money, so they can more thoroughly enjoy their romance?

Does it help people who want to help impoverished Cubans? I mean, think of the horrors that would ensue if people from America could freely send food and other vital necessities to Cubans.

You get the idea.

What it really boils down to is that the U.S. doesn’t want anyone to spend money in any nation-state that is hostile to the United States. No one is permitted to challenge the American system in any way whatsoever. You cannot give money to any person — be they governmental or non-governmental — who partakes of a disapproved system.

(I wrote this when I was sure I was a girl. I am currently genderqueer and seeking resolution on the question of trans sexuality)

This is a piece I wrote in a fit of inspiration. I sent it out to friends and family on email, but I wanted to share it on my site too. It begins below:

Bear with me friends. This is a moderately lengthy copy and paste job with some modification of my original words. The issues discussed are important though.

Roderick Long writes:

[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]

A friend sends me a link to this story about several counties in California responding to the recent legalisation of same-sex marriage by refusing to perform any marriage ceremonies at all, whether same-sex or hetero. My friend asks whether this is a positive or negative development from a libertarian standpoint; although the motive may be homophobic, isn’t this policy a step in the right direction, i.e., toward getting the state out of the business of defining and regulating marriage, leaving it to private contract and custom?

Well, I think it’s a mixed bag. Recent events have actually gotten the separation of state and marriage onto the table in broader-than-libertarian circles, which is surely a good thing even if some of the motives are questionable. But under present circumstances, county governments refusing to perform marriages has a serious downside.

As things stand, the state imposes a variety of legal burdens on unmarried couples from which married couples are exempt; these range from higher taxes to restrictions on inheritance, refusal of right to make medical decisions on a partner’s behalf, and, in the case of citizen/alien couples, liability to deportation for the alien. In this context, when one branch of the state, charged with providing the only legal means of avoiding certain forms of aggression imposed by another branch of the state, refuses to provide those means, it arguably becomes an accessory to the aggression – while still collecting salary from the taxes of the victims, to boot. Now if county employees wish to resign their tax-funded jobs, that’s another matter. But in the meantime, it’s as though my henchman Sluggo says he’s going to rob you unless my other henchman Thuggo says not to, while Thuggo remains silent (and collects his share of the take).

Incidentally, another friend who’s doing academic research on marriage asks me for citations to articles (preferably though not necessarily in academic journals) by “prominent libertarians” who argue that the state should stay out of marriage. Any suggestions? (So far all my friend has found is Jennifer Roback Morse’s argument that a libertarian state should not permit divorce! For the honour of libertarianism we must do better.)

I responded thusly:

Natasha said,

June 30, 2008 at 5:09 pm

How the hell does she conclude that a libertarian state shouldn’t permit divorce? That’s just too weird.

Natasha said,

June 30, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Oh, by the way, I agree with you about the mixed bag. A contextual anti-statist analysis takes into account the reality of a state dominated conception of marriage.

In my opinion, the more important battle to be waged is a cultural-philosophical one. As long as many Americans remain bigots about the question of LGBT rights, then there will be major problems for LGBT individuals in society.

Imagine if social security disappeared tomorrow and was replaced by a nationwide network of private conservative churches that only doled out assistance to “properly” wed straight couples. I’d say that the fact that the state is out of the picture is no cure all.

Mike Gogulski said,

June 30, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Natasha, it seems I read you everywhere, and I really love your perspective, since with just a few words you consistently manage to cast light into areas which are dark to me personally.

However, with what you said about churches, what’s the threat, at least in this particular case? The ballyhooed social safety net isn’t likely to be replaced solely by religious or conservative organizations, least of all in California. Freed from state taxation and other compulsions I suspect that you and I and millions of other people of conscience would support organizations that closely conformed to our own ideals, and that those services which were necessary would somehow get delivered. At least, I *want* to believe that is the case.

The cultural-philosophical battle is one which continues to be won. Completely outside the LGBT world myself, I am always delighted to see walls like this coming crashing down. I *hate* the oozing, gelatinous pace of the thing, though. All that’s necessary is for a couple hundred million folks to wake up tomorrow morning and decide to stop being complete assholes. Seems easy, ain’t gonna happen.

Anyway, I’m not trying to knock down the “mixed bag” argument Roderick makes at all. It is truly thus.

PS, to all: I need a ride to Ancapistan, sometime around Thursday. Anyone going?

Ok, so I had to stop to highlight the very touching and beautiful compliment of my writing. Call me a conceited egotist ( : ( :

Anyhow, here is what another commenter said to me:

“”Private conservative churches”, just like any private organizations, have every right to use their resources as they see fit. If they are the only people giving any charity, the natural conclusion is that they are the only ones who care. I suspect this is unlikely.

There is no reason that charity has to be limited to churches, BTW. Have you never known a charitable athiest?”

Rich,

I feel you missed the point of my comment. I wasn’t saying we should get into a firefight with private conservative churches that don’t donate money to “improperly” coupled people. I am saying that we should use peaceful and non-violent methods of struggle to make sure that any future libertarian society’s social safety net structure is inclusive rather than exclusive. I am not advocating violent statist means to achieve social change. I recognize the right of groups to free association. I will not peacefully sanction or turn a blind eye to mindless and destructive discrimination though. I would want it to be met by social ostracism and economic boycott.

In other words: are we going to be thick or thin libertarians here? Are we going to translate political individualism into culturally individualist commitments that are quite logically connected to the political ones? I am saying that libertarians must strongly denounce discrimination against LGBT people by governmental and non-governmental institutions.

I am a transgendered girl living in a not friendly enough world who wants to live a happy life. I agree with Mike that more people than just conservative religionists would donate to charity and social safety net organizations in a libertarian society — I certainly would!. And I know people I can rely on right now, but if I were living in a hostile small town, then my reality might be quite different.

I want assurances from my libertarian comrades that they won’t turn a blind eye to cultural oppression of me. Please try to place yourself in the shoes of a transgendered girl living in a country that is economically collapsing and who may have to use state services to survive in the real world someday. If the only alternative to state services run by cultural liberals who treat me with respect is a network of “revolutionary” conservative Southern Baptist churches that refuse to recognize me as female, then I know where my interests lie. They sure as hell don’t lie with the anti-state Southern Baptist conservatives.

For me to practice mutual aid with someone requires some degree of shared values. People whose values are antithetical to mine to the point of denying me life saving aid on the basis that I am “immorally” changing my gender are people I cannot be political or cultural allies with. I cannot happily discuss political ideology, while I am starving in the streets or unable to find adequate medical care. This is very much not an abstract academic discussion for me. My life and my survival in this world are at stake. I am not interested in being a mere addition to the high statistical number of transgendered people who are impoverished and threatened.

A commitment to cultural individualism and LGBT rights should be official policy for libertarians. And the left-libertarians who understand this are among my strongest political-cultural allies For example, see the wonderful blog of Charles Johnson at: http://www.radgeek.com/.

Charles, if you’re reading this: let me thank you so much for the writing and work you do. You’re a paradoxical beacon of light in this world — I say paradoxical, because you write on such disturbing topics. Please keep informing yourself and the rest of us though!

With best regards to my readers,

Natasha

P.S. I do know charitable atheists. I am one of them!

P.S.S.

The fact that a conservative religionist like Bob Barr was able to capture the LP nomination is symptomatic of the problem of Libertarianism being wedded to far too many and sometimes wildly contradictory value systems. I call upon left-libertarians to reclaim the word in the name of an interrelated triad of political-economic-and cultural positions that form a coherent radically individualist ideology concerned with basic decency (i.e. don’t let people starve on the streets in the name of freedom! And don’t defend racist private property owners who refuse to rationally associate with members of other races)

The two principles that should underlie our vision are individual freedom and voluntary cooperation. The application of the latter will necessarily include the unforced provision of resources to those in severely bad circumstances. I cannot stress how important it is that the organizations involved be inclusive. The lives of countless human beings depend on it.

The lives of people I love depend on it.

And my desire to live a passionate rational life in the spirit of Enlightenment liberalism demands it.

One more brief point about how to deal with anti-LGBT conservative churches with extensive control of important resources is that firefights would be supremely impractical.

I wrote this when I was becoming more intellectually convinced of the contextual value of centralism. This is something I frequently have internal battles about. Ironically, my condemnation of the idea of a government owned school in the South setting policy in the manner of a directly democratic cooperative runs contrary to the rights of free association. I prefer social ostracism to violence in solving problems like these. It’s one thing to endorse the Federal government acting defensively against the enforcement of sodomy laws at the state level, but it’s quite another to violently prevent the secession of a school by racists. That’s more likely to kill someone than solve the social problem of racism. I still offer this piece for constructive criticism.

One mistake that people can make is to have more appreciation for populism than is warranted. I wrote the following piece after running across an egregious example that demonstrates very clearly what I mean. I must clarify to the reader that I find a constitutional republic a preferable alternative to other types of statist structures. My comment at the beginning was intended to convey astonishment at the apparent failure of this individual to understand basic things about the American constitutional structure.

I just finished glancing through a discussion on gay marriage legalization (perhaps, one of the best recent examples of irrational and utterly cruel reactionary hysteria) on Myspace.

And here is what one bigot from the Ozarks said:

The voters decide, as it should be.

In every instance it has come forth the voters have said No.

Um, I am sorry. I thought this was supposed to be a constitutional republic where certain rights are not subject to majority rule. You know what? Fuck the voters. I have more respect for the supreme court judges in California who actually understand something as simple as equality before the law.

I will support every court in the land legalizing gay marriage. I will support them against every single anti-gay bozo. In this case, I am most definitely not a populist. Populism is not an ideological primary for me. Of course, I don’t believe in elitism as an ideology either, but populism can only be a consequence of a fundamentally decent and humane society-culture. Otherwise, to empower “the people” is to empower tyranny.

Rule by judges is better than rule by the “democracy” of majority decision here.

And it gets even worse with this guy:

Joe©:

Tate:
The voters decide, as it should be.

In every instance it has come forth the voters have said No.

Should the voters be able to segregate schools, too?

Yes.”

And with this statement: this person reveals something very troubling. I can only wonder what stance he would have taken during the Civil Rights era.

How exactly was the Civil Rights movement supposed to legally succeed in areas where the majority was hostile to their cause? In one instance, students had to be marched to school under the protection of the armed forces, because an animalistic mob gathered outside to bare their teeth at someone over a mere difference in skin pigmentation.

Wikipedia says:

“Brown v. Board of Education

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, on May 17, 1954. The decision declared all laws establishing segregated schools to be unconstitutional, and it called for the desegregation of all schools throughout the nation.[2] After the decision the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) attempted to register black students in previously all-white schools in cities throughout the South. In Little Rock, the capital city of Arkansas, the Little Rock School Board agreed to comply with the high court’s ruling. Virgil Blossom, the Superintendent of Schools, submitted a plan of gradual integration to the school board on May 24, 1955, which the board unanimously approved. The plan would be implemented during the 1958 school year, which would begin in September 1957. By 1957, the NAACP had registered nine black students to attend the previously all-white Little Rock Central High, selected on the criteria of excellent grades and attendance.[3]

[edit] The entrance blocked

Several segregationist “citizens’ councils” threatened to hold protests at Central High and physically block the black students from entering the school. Governor Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists on September 4, 1957. The sight of a line of soldiers blocking nine black students from attending high school made national headlines and polarized the city. On September 9, “The Council of Church Women” issued a statement condemning the governor’s deployment of soldiers to the high school and called for a citywide prayer service on September 12. Even President Dwight Eisenhower attempted to de-escalate the situation and summoned Governor Faubus to meet him. The President warned the governor not to interfere with the Supreme Court’s ruling.[4]

The governor backed down and withdrew the National Guard, and the Little Rock Police Department took their place. Hundreds of protesters, mostly parents of the white students attending Central High, remained entrenched in front of the school. On Monday, September 23, the police quietly slipped the nine students into the school. When the protesters learned that the nine black students were inside, they began confronting the outnumbered line of policemen. When white residents began to riot[6], the nine students were escorted out of the school.[7]“

This is what pre-modern irrationality and jeering racial tribalism has to offer us. The spectacle of chaos and destruction over nine black students having a chance at education in a public school. Let us apply the gentleman above’s formula to the sub-political unit of a segregated government owned school in the American South. If the majority of people connected to the school (teachers, students, parents, admin., and so on) were allowed to decide whether it should be integrated or not, then would the gentleman above have invoked “democracy”, despite the fact that the equality before the law and rule of the many that it implies was being undermined? If this be democracy, then it’s merely the “democracy” of a viciously bigoted racial majority denying the positive freedom of an oppressed racial minority.

And what if the whole state had voted on it? Does anyone think the voters would have approved?

I will state my anti-statist position clearly. As long as the state exists, then it’s only just that the facilities it owns and controls be operated in an equitable fashion. When Federal authority overrides unjust local authority, then we have a case of a more liberal authoritarian structure doing battle with a more illiberal one. The doctrine of liberty will always be a liberalistic one. By its individualist impetus, it strikes at the root of tyrannical tradition — be it racial, sex, or sexual identity based — and brings the whole tree of traditional tyranny crashing down.

If anarchists and libertarians wish to be seen as defenders of a culture of individual rights and not defenders of grassroots bigotry, then they must not confuse decentralist tyranny with freedom.

I applaud the judges who are doing battle against premodern mobs seeking to overturn any remaining vestige of freedom and equality in America.

“To turn Americans against their government the very first step is has always been appealing to their patriotism. America: We Kill Kings. America: We Don’t Need No Fucking Leaders. America: We’re Too Patriotic To Be Nationalistic. America: Freedom In Your Face. America: I Own A Gun To Shoot Cops. America: We Invented The Fucking Revolution. America: We Invited Empire Into Our Living Room For A Reason. America: It’s Only A Matter Of Time Before We Do The Fuckers In. America: It Didn’t Happen Over Here.

America: The Only Conceivable Ground Zero For The Revolution.

To understand where to go from here, we have to understand that Americans are in no way attached to Obama the individual, Americans are attached to the way Obama makes them feel.

It won’t win us any points to stick to our guns and pointing out just how sick and twisted of a psychopath Obama must be to want to rule us all and to actively seek out that position of domination over us. But if we suck up to the sentiment of the moment, pander to localized interests, and accept the image of a noble man while questioning his effectiveness under “the system” we do make three mistakes:

1. We look stupid, shifty and unprincipled.

2. We sound cynical and outdated.

3. We attack the individualist dream.

In short we throw away our strongest points! Anarchism is the most logical and principled position there is. We automatically win every ethical argument vigilantly taken to its conclusion. Anarchism is embedded in every advance and hope for the future. Every modern ethical awakening has struck against hierarchy, every successful component of the information age adopts more and more anarchistic attributes. Anarchism IS the individualist dream. You, you personally, can singlehandedly start the motherfucking revolution. You’re going to have to.

Anarchism is not some mechanical proletarian revolt, nor is it some impersonal mathematical reality of laissez-faire economics. And it’s certainly no throwing up your hands and saying to hell with it. Anarchism is a simple ethical and philosophical realization: to be a fully living, thinking human being you have to let go of your power over others. They must let go of their power over you.

The thing is, you already know this. (You’re awesome.) So why don’t you embrace it further. (And be more awesome.)

Things like pesky little election soap operas are just getting in the way. Never mind that Obama cat, he’s no where near as awesome as you. So, and I’m just saying this, what have you done today to spread your awesomeness?”

~ William Gillis

Comrade Gillis just blew me away with his latest post. I give him a hearty bravo! And no: I am not going to go shoot cops. Don’t take the wrong message from this post — especially if you’re one of America’s spooky NSA people.

While the U.S. military spends its time propping up an evil regime in Kabul; the heroic figures involved with RAWA continue to denounce any and all enemies of secularism in Afghanistan.

I present their latest statement below:

Neither the US nor Jehadies and Taliban,
Long Live the Struggle of Independent and Democratic Forces of Afghanistan!

Seven years back the US government and its allies were successfully able to legitimize their military invasion on Afghanistan and deceive the people of the US and the world under the banners of “liberating Afghan women”, “democracy” and “war on terror”. Our people, who had been tormented and oppressed by the Taliban’s dominance, were filled with hope but soon their dream of the establishment of security, democracy and freedom was shattered in the most painful manner.

By the installation of the puppet government of Karzai, the US reused its creations and continued its deal with the Jehadi criminal warlords. From the very start, Mr. Karzai shunned the demands and trusts of the people and chose to compromise with the criminals of the “Northern Alliance” and placed the filthiest faces in the key posts of the government. In contradiction to the shameless claims of the ministers and other treacherous and corrupt officials, our people feel more ill-fated; the country has been turned to a mafia state and self-immolation, rape and abduction of women and children has no parallel in the history of Afghanistan.

Despite Karzai’s pretence and crocodile tears, we witness that rapists are not only protected from persecution but forgiven, as Karzai announced amnesty for the people who had raped and then killed a woman and with this filthy act, soaked his hands in crime too!

On one hand, Karzai talks high of freedom of speech and democracy in his speeches and on the other hand a young journalist like Pervaiz Kambakhsh is behind bars and sentenced to death by the murderous band of Atta Mohammad; another brave journalist Naseer Fayyaz is forced to leave the country due to constant threats from big criminals including Ismail Khan and Qasim Fahim, and investigation by KHAD simply because he exposes the government and supports the truth. Some other noble and anti-fundamentalist people have been harassed and even harmed by the terrorists in power.

Karzai’s government requested for $51 billion in the Paris Conference, whereas the previous money flooded into Afghanistan was not spent for the reconstruction of the country because of the atrocious corruption and indolence of ridiculous government officials. Moreover, people have been forced to sell their children due to destitution and starvation. The reality is that till now a big part of the aid have fattened the wallets and waists of the mafias of the “Northern Alliance”, national and international NGOs and the corrupt governmental authorities. The people of the world should know that their aid is going to a government composed of fundamentalist criminals and technocrats who are also secret agents and corrupt to the marrow of bone and their aid has no benefit for the common people of Afghanistan.

The day to day expansion of the power of Taliban reflects the real nature of the “war on terror” which has empowered the roots of fundamentalist terrorism more than ever. This is only a showcase to justify the long military presence of the US in our country and in the region. The result of this war has been such a huge failure that even political and military officials of the US and other countries have mentioned it very explicitly several times.

Instead of removing the cancerous lump of the Taliban and their Jehadi brothers from the framework of Afghanistan, the troops of the US and its allies are bombarding wedding and joy parties and showering bullets on our oppressed people, especially women and children. Furthermore, when such crimes are exposed they shamelessly and haughtily deny them, and when the matter is proved, an arrogant “sorry” is offered, which pours more salt on the wounds of the people.

As we have declared many times, the US government has no and will not have any genuine concern for the condition of freedom, democracy and women’s rights in Afghanistan. It is ready to accept a more corrupt, destructive and anti-democratic government than the one in power now, provided that its stooges are the rulers. Therefore today, some top criminals are being consistently freed from the prison. This clearly shows that “democracy” and “freedom of women” do not hold even an iota of value for the US administration and its allies in Afghanistan. They are planning to install a government made up of Talib and Gulbuddini criminals; Khalqi and Parchami Quislings; lackeys of the blood thirsty Iranian regime from the “National Front”; and some other reactionary and treasonous elements related to the intelligence services of the West, so that even without direct military presence they would be able to control the country and save the country from becoming Iraq where the people rose against the US forces and its allies. If the US argues that it has not committed treachery, with the establishment of a government woven of the dirtiest enemies in the history of Afghanistan, they have committed the biggest possible treason against the Afghan nation, and they will not be able to justify this with any kinds of fabrications and cheatings.

Forgetting their foremost duty of giving awareness, a portion of the intellectuals of our country are engaged in shameful deeds of creating and igniting the ethnic, religious and linguistic differences among people on which the occupations are pouring fuel too. Some have taken this to such a level of disgrace that they believe the Taliban to be the rescuing forces; and the band of the murderers and agents of the “National Front”, and the groups attached to the US and NATO to be the sources of prosperity.

The Afghan intellectuals who see the remedy of freedom from the captivity of Taliban and Jehadis as leaning on the US have no idea about the history of the US; more importantly about the bourn of Afghanistan in the past seven years. Neither can they present a single example of a country that had gained freedom and democracy with the help of the US military invasion nor can they bury the secrets of the bloody wars and invasions of the US in different parts of the world. Thus, the mentioned intellectuals are practically known as “agents of CIA” in the political scenario of Afghanistan.

RAWA believes that in the present situation, elections will not give a better result than the previous one. In the conditions where all the governmental bodies are mainly under the reign of drug kingpin criminals and under the direct control of the US, most probably not even a handful of noble and independence-loving people will find way into the parliament; therefore, the future parliament like today’s will be home to the criminals and mafia whose life and status and solely depend on dollars, weapons and the US support. If the US believes that Karzai has expired, it will bring another of its creation and won’t allow an independent, democratic and anti-fundamentalist candidate to become the president with people voting freely.

The insignificance of our people’s freedom desires and the actual aim of the US and its allies has reached to such an extent that a very bright example is when the Britain government announces shamelessly that Afghanistan needs a dictator! Taking into account their contacts with the Taliban terrorists, the most suitable dictator in their opinion must be Mr. Mullah Omar. The US and its allies might control the strings of the dirty puppet show in Afghanistan by their powerful war machines with Mullah Omar, Rabbani, Mohaqiq, Sayyaf, Dr. Abdullah or the trained secret agents like Ali Ahmed Jalalis, but they should be sure that this treacherous spitting on democracy in Afghanistan and insulting the will and anger of our people on ignorance, medieval misogynists and Talibi and Jehadi fascism will be rubbed back on their faces by our people.

It seems that if the invaders stop pretending and the dictator according to them should be Mullah Omar or some other suit-clad Bache Saqao then they should cancel or postpone the ridiculous hard work of elections.

RAWA strongly believes that there should be no expectation of either the US or any other country to present us with democracy, peace and prosperity. Our freedom is only achievable at the hands of our people. It is the duty of all the intellectuals, all the democratic forces and progressive and independence-seeking people to rise in a constant and decisive struggle for independence and democracy by taking the support of our wounded people as the independent force, against the presence of the US and its allies and the domination of Jehadi and Taliban criminals. Combating against the armed and alien forces in the country without being loud-mouthed against the Talibi and Jehadi enemies would mean welcoming the misfortunes of fascism and religious mafia. Also, struggling against this enemy without fighting the military presence of the US, its allies and its puppet government would mean falling before foreign agents. The path of the freedom-fighters of our country without doubt, will be very complex, difficult and bloody; but if our demand is to be freed from the chains of the slavery of foreigners and their Talib and Jehadi lackeys, we should not fear trial or death to become triumphant.

Neither the US nor Jehadies and Taliban, Long Live the Struggle of Independent and Democratic forces of Afghanistan!

Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)

October 7, 2008

The U.S. has consistently made allies of the worst in Afghanistan. This is why it’s no surprise that it has made enemies of the best. It must end its support for the warlords and Islamists to achieve credibility with the organizations that really matter.

It’s interesting that the term socialism has been adopted by everyone from Emma Goldman to Adolf Hitler. I post a quote of his from a fellow blogger below:

Here is Hitler’s view of Socialism, Christianity and Jesus, from pp. 139-140 of those memoirs:

Socialism is a question of attitude toward life, of the ethical outlook on life of all who live together in a common ethnic or national space. Socialism is a Weltanschauung!

But in actual fact there is nothing new about this Weltanschauung. Whenever I read the New Testament Gospels and the revelations of various of the prophets and imagine myself back in the era of the Roman and late Hellenistic, as well as the Oriental world, I am astonished at all that has been made of the teachings of these divinely inspired men, especially Jesus Christ, which are so clear and unique, heightened to religiosity. They were the ones who created this new worldview which we now call socialism, they established it, they taught it and they lived it! But the communities that called themselves Christian churches did not understand it! Or if they did, they denied Christ and betrayed him! For they transformed the holy idea of Christian socialism into its opposite! They killed it, just as, at the time, the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross; they buried it, just as the body of Christ was buried. But they allowed Christ to be resurrected, instigating the belief that his teachings too, were reborn!

It is in this that the monstrous crime of these enemies of Christian socialism lies! What the basest hypocrisy they carry before them the cross– the instrument of that murder which, in their thoughts, they commit over and over– as a new divine sign of Christian awareness, and allow mankind to kneel to it. They even pretend to be preaching the teachings of Christ. But their lives and deeds are a constant blow against these teachings and their Creator and a defamation of God!

We are the first to exhume these teachings! Through us alone, and not until now, do these teachings celebrate their resurrection! Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man! But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!

Herein lies the essential element of our mission: we must bring back to the German Volk the recognition of those teachings! For what did the falsification of the original concept of Christian love, of the community of fate before God and of socialism lead to? By their fruits ye shall know them! The suppression of freedom of opinion, the persecution of the true Christians, the vile mass murders of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, the armed campaigns against the people of free and true Christian faith, the destruction of towns and villages, the hauling away of their cattle and their goods, the destruction of their flourishing economies, and the condemnation of their leaders before tribunals, which, in their unrelenting hypocrisy, can only be described as balaphemous. That is the true face of those sanctimonious churches that have placed themselves between God and man, motivated by selfishness, personal greed for recognition and gain, and the ambition to maintain their high-handed willfulness against Christ’s deep understanding of the necessity of a socialist community of men and nations. We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ’s words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers! This youth will, with loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the devil in their hearts, who give alms in order to remain undisturbed as they themselves throw their money around, who invoke the Fatherland as they fill their own purses by the toil of others, who preach peace and incite to war….

Via Adam Reed.

Arthur Silber is in very deep trouble. I strongly urge people to read his writings and donate to his continued existence. His latest post reminds me that he may very well die before I get a chance to meet him.

Click on his name above to visit the post on his website, but I have excerpted it below:

P.S. Hey, y’all. Next week, I may tell you a bit more about what happened this summer, and why I was absent from these parts for so long. Basically, it was an unrelievedly awful time. For over a month, I wasn’t certain I would ever get back to writing, or to anything else at all. Yes, it was that bad. And yet, here I am. I’m not in good shape exactly; in fact, I still feel pretty lousy, but at least it’s not as bad as it was. And I am enjoying the writing I’m doing now, and I hope you are, too.

Thanks to some very kind donors — and thanks to several donors who have been outlandishly generous — I was able to survive the summer even though I was immobilized most of the time. And thanks to some donations just this week, I can still eat and I have part of the September rent. Which is due next week. Ackety ack. I’m still short of about two-thirds of the rent, and I need to pay some overdue bills. And the cats need to eat too, of course. People sometimes tell me I should post pictures of my beautiful children, and then you’d all shower me with lots and lots of donations. Cat pity, ya know. Hard to resist. And I’d do it — but I am very, very, very poor. No “luxuries” of any kind — like teevee — so I don’t have a camera. Haven’t had one for years. So no pictures. But my cats are the most gorgeous, the funniest, and the sweetest cats in the entire world. But you probably knew that.

So, if you have some money you’d care to throw in this direction, I would be deeply grateful as always. And Cyrano and Wendy say thanks, too. Given my health, I can’t predict what next week might bring, but I’ll keep up this writing streak as long as I can. I much prefer life when I’m able to write regularly, although that reality tends to fade away almost completely during the worst times. I hope this comparatively good time will be here for a minimum of several months, at least through the election. Who would want to miss all this fun and frivolity?!?

As always, many, many thanks for your time and consideration, and for your extraordinary generosity. Okay, Wendy, I’m almost done, so you can write to your friends in a few minutes. (They both write a lot of email. You wouldn’t believe the friends they have, all over the world. It’s true, I can show you emails they’ve written. A few of you out there have even received some of them. It’s a battle for the computer every day. We need a mediator.) All right, finishing up right now, Wendy. Kids.

Arthur; you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me. And it makes me so angry to see you wasting away like this. If there was ever a justification for a social safety net, then what you have written above is it. You’re an amazingly creative writer who produces original material. I just wish the rest of the world could see you the way I do. I wish they could understand why it’s a crime that you have to suffer like this, while a Bill Kristol gets a spot on the New York Times editorial page.

To borrow and modify the end of your Maria Callas essay: for you, truly and incomparably Arthur: now and always. If you ever read this post, I hope you will view my adoption of it as a fitting tribute to you.

A California judge made my argument on government schooling for me:

“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,” the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.”

~ From “Rad Geek’s” blog

Dear Americans,

Don’t you dare educate children in a way that would cause them to question the state or not contribute towards the “public welfare” — whatever the hell that means.

Me thinks “public welfare” is a vacuous term that disguises the fact that people are being oppressed.

Last time I checked, my welfare was not at all dependent on the success of the government schooling system. Does this mean I am not a member of the public? I’ll be waiting for an answer from the relevant authorities.

One of Roderick Long’s recent posts reminded me of Emma Goldman’s essay titled The Failure of Christianity.

Obama clearly hasn’t read it yet.