#More crime more murder more death more bigotry and actively wants to help continue the genocides going on already

[yeetspace]

Something I said that was extremely poignant and quick way to shut someone who was trying to moralize voting third party was reminding them well two things from two separate comment sections

A point I've heard many a Time from many different people so I will not try and pretend like the opinion is mine, the people who think that voting third party and being revolutionaries will actually work are able-bodied people who have never felt the sting of systemic prejudice or just a single of the MANY deeply intersectional prejudices and So can only conceptualize themselves as the katniss, the main character from maze runner cuz I don't remember his name, that type of shit. They want to be the one that walks up on the bodies and is the one that finally is the one that does the thing. The problem is is they never once conceptualize who those bodies are. And we people who would be in that pile that they would be climbing on to finally "win the day", would really rather make the option that would allow us to work together instead of violent destructive coup that will leave no one left that was actually in the groupings that most of the previous choices were made to try and mitigate the dangers towards.

Cuz now we shift over to the other point, people are acting like the disabled, or queer, or POC or all of the above folk who are desperately not wanting people to choose the option that will actually just directly lead to their death and or removal of Rights are fear-mongering or being manipulative for daring to be mean or sound too upset about it. It's literally just fucking tone policing and it's wild that people are just pretending like it's not. When disabled queer folk tell you that this person that is actively trying to get us killed wants us killed and it said such themselves you should probably not choose the option that's going to make them have the absolute power to do whatever the fuck they want including and directly bleeding to the exact thing they have only said they will do with that power alongside also obfuscating any sort of information to its people and making things worse worse just everywhere that we have our fucking decrepit creepy ass American fingers in.

But that's also my third thing I completely forgot about this one Joe was voted in so that the able-bodied people capable of making changes and doing things could go and try and do things and then none of those things happened and less happened actually and things were taken away, And yet somehow people are trying to say that the people who are only voting this option because the last time the last option that was voted to do anything to help us just no one did anything the entire time and now we're the bad guys for the situation that happened cuz we wanted to vote in the guy that was supposed to just be there cuz he was inept enough to where the people could try and work with the communities that needed help and then none of that fucking happened and things just got worse and yet somehow the people that are actively suffering the most and we're only trying to get help because of the choices made by others are now the ones at fault for daring to want to make the choice that won't lead to their direct deaths. Like Jesus fucking Christ get over yourself vote blue.

[arcofacatboy]

The fact of the matter is that by promoting and speaking positively of Neal’s books, I feel like I am putting money in his pocket - I am rewarding him. And I don’t want to reward someone or give free promotion to someone who won’t speak up about a genocide out of apathy and cowardice.

This isn’t a topic that you need to have personal experience with to realize what is going on, and who you should be standing with. This isn’t some pointless tumblr discourse about who can use what label or whatever. This is one country, Israel, slaughtering and erasing the culture of a group of people, Palestinians, because they feel entitled to the land of Palestine, and because they see the people of Palestine as less than human. That, by definition, is genocide.

I would recommend reading my most recent post about this, as I explore something a lot of people have said in more depth - that being that Neal not taking a stance here is the opposite of what he portrays as being righteous and good in his books. I used the death of Baby Lassiter from Unwind as an example in that post, but, in every Neal book I’ve read, there are themes of activism and pushing for the bettering of society, despite what pain or harm might come to you. For example, Citra and Rowan didn’t just let Goddard continue to be a murderous tyrant - Rowan killed him once, and will do everything in his power to kill him again. Citra doesn’t have that same physical access to Goddard, so instead uses the power of speaking and public activism to assist in his downfall. And we see in Dry how the greed and ignorance of politicians and companies can result in the deaths of many, just because they lack access to one important resource - water. The people of California in Dry aren’t alone in having their access to water cut off.

Neal’s books have changed my life. I loved his books, I loved his works, I loved his characters. Tyger especially was always there when I needed him - he helped me get over trauma that would be too big of a hurdle to overcome on my own. But I am not going to let my love for a series or an author alter my perspective on the fact that Neal’s silence puts blood on his hands.

Here is a more tumblr-friendly comparison - let’s say Neal was being asked to give his opinion on the “Don’t Say Gay” bill that was passed in Florida. (I’m pretty sure he actually did give his opinion, but let’s pretend.) now, imagine how people would react if Neal said that he couldn’t denounce or agree with the bill, because he wasn’t LGBTQ+ himself, and therefore didn’t have enough knowledge to accurately make a statement. Everyone and their grandma would be calling him a homophobe and be calling bullshit. You don’t need to be LGBTQ+ to realize that a bill banning people in public schools from mentioning the existence of queer people is discrimination.

The same thing applies here, in a way. You don’t need to be Palestinian or Israeli to realize that Israel is trying to kill every Palestinian they can. You don’t need to be an expert on history to realize this is a genocide, and you don’t need to be an expert on bigotry to realize that Israel’s actions are rooted in racism and xenophobia. And Neal has written about all these topics in the past, denouncing those who either commit acts of violence and hatred, and those who do nothing to stop them. He falls into that latter category now - his silence is something he would denounce in his books. So why isn’t he saying anything?

I might make a separate post about this but Neal also uses Hamas as a buzzword, in the fashion that is usually implemented by supporters or apologists of Israel. I feel like that explains his silence well enough. He’s not staying silent because he doesn’t feel it’s his place to speak - he’s staying silent because he doesn’t want to face criticism from either side, even though his beliefs seem to more closely align with the narrative that Palestine instigated this genocide, and that Israel needs to chill out on the war crimes because it makes them look bad, and not because theyre killing people who didn’t do anything wrong.

Last thing - there is a lot of nuance in separating the art from the artist, and being able to enjoy art despite the actions of the artist or the implications of the art itself. I won’t get too in depth here, lest I go on a rant about Mike Tyson’s Punch Out, but it’s really damn hard to enjoy a piece of media you know was created by someone who is still actively doing harm, in my opinion, compared to someone who has been dead for years or is no longer culturally relevant. Using other authors as an example, it’s why people will still go see the Wonka movie but boycott Harry Potter. Roald Dahl was just about every terrible thing you could think of - but he died in 1990. He didn’t use his platform to advocate for the removal of people’s rights - he was a raging bigot, but mainly wrote stories that would scare the shit out of kids. JK Rowling, on the other hand, is very much alive, gives portions of her extreme wealth to those who attempt to strip the rights of trans people, constantly speaks out about how much harm she believes trans people are causing women and society at large, etc, etc. she puts her money where her mouth is - she puts in into harmful and transphobic causes. Roald Dahl can’t do that. He’s dead.

Neal isn’t actively campaigning for Israel to be more cruel to Palestinians, of course - he’s just doing nothing and contributing to their suffering by remaining silent, because his main motivation is the bottom dollar. He may think that if he stays quiet, his profit won’t be affected. That’s why I don’t support him or his works anymore - all he cares about right now is money and positive publicity, so I’m not going to give him either.

about current events

this is me respectfully voicing my opinion and I would love to hear what you all have to say about this. Once again this is my opinion and I’m not trying to call out or offend anyone.

this is addressing the email that Neal Shusterman sent out on Thursday

he’s getting some backlash for what he said about the Palestinian situation going on. But imo he didn’t say anything  worthy of being offended or upset about.

“When asked about it, I tell the truth.  And the truth is, I am not qualified to spout my personal opinion.  I am a Jewish American.  I am NOT an Israeli citizen facing the murder and kidnapping of loved ones by Hamas.  And I am also not an innocent Palestinian facing Israel’s massive and deadly response to that attack.  Just because I have a microphone and a platform doesn’t mean that I have a right to vomit forth an opinion on a situation that’s so complex and so deeply rooted.”

he’s saying that he doesn’t have the experience to speak on the subject so he’s choosing to opt out. I personally don’t see a problem with deciding not to voice his personal opinion. Neal seems frustrated that he’s even be asked or involved with something that has little relevance to him. I see people saying that they plan to boycott or lessen their involvement with him, which doesn’t bother mean. That’s your choice and right to stop being involved with something that upsets you. But what does make me sad is seeing others say that they won’t reread or follow the fandom. This deeply upsets me because aoas is my favorite book series and it truly made me love reading. So I ask why people want to stop reading his work? I love Shusterman’s writing because it has made my life better. I see active members of this small fandom cutting back because of the current events, and I want to know your opinion as to why you feel this way. Hate the creator not the creation. 

Reminder: I’m not trying to offend or upset and I truly want to hear your side. 

this is all genuine and this is how I feel.

I love this fandom and the people in it. I care about what you have to say

[daffronc-blog]

Final Project Part Two-Orange Skin: A Modern Retelling Of Bluebeard

Reflective Essay:

I’ll try and keep it brief since I think the story will speak for itself. I decided after looking at the options for part two of the final project that I wanted to retell one of the fairy tales we read in class. I decided to choose Bluebeard because there were a lot of ways I could retell that story and present a wide variety of outcomes and morals.

I decided to try and channel my frustration with the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants into the story. It made perfect sense. Set the story in the present day, substitute a blue beard for orange skin, and the dead wives for immigrant children and you’ve got an effectively chilling and gut-wrenching reimagining with a startling amount of relevance.

For this story, you could say the devil is in the details. I tried to heighten the story’s impact with visuals like American flags covered in the blood of innocent immigrant children and the eventual and ironic demise of Trump with one of these flags, since he loves to wave them around and brag about how much of a patriot he is while instituting policies that are straight out of dystopian fiction.

Also, most of the things that Trump says in the story to justify his actions are based on actual things I’ve heard or seen family members and people I went to high school with say in defense of his administration's current actions and policy on immigrants in general. When you think about it, that adds a much more frightening edge to the story.

The heroine of the story is Senator Susan Collins, a real Republican Senator from Maine. Originally, I was going to make up a fictional female senator, but then an idea struck me: Why not find a real, Republican Senator that opposes the Trump Administration’s policy of family separation. After a bit of searching, I found exactly what I was looking for.

There’s plenty more I could say about the story, but I don’t want to spoil more than I already have. So, I’ll leave you with some wise lyrics from a song my Australian friends The Decline wrote called “Refujesus”: 

“Everyone’s an immigrant and I’m tired of all your racist shit/There’s a fine line between national pride and racist bigotry/You’re ignorant if you deny we grew from the same seeds/Convicts, immigrants, Asylum seekers, refugees – We’re all the same”

I hope you enjoy the story, or it at least makes you think,

Charlie

Orange Skin: A Modern Retelling of Bluebeard

 Once upon a time, there was a nasty, orange-skinned United States President named Donald Trump. He was disliked by many people across the country because he was a belligerent, racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic human slug who was as ugly on the outside as he was on the inside.

He was very difficult to work with because he was either constantly firing his staff or they were resigning.

On this particular June day, Trump’s White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly, had just resigned after spending less than a year in his position. Republican Senator Susan Collins had been chosen to replace Kelly.

On her first day, Collins was called into the Oval Office, where she met with the president to discuss her duties and his schedule. While she was there she was given her key card which would allow her access to all areas of the White House.

“Now this key card will open any door in the White House,” Trump said, “But there is one room that you must never enter under any circumstances. That’s the last room on the bottom floor of the West Wing. The only one who’s allowed in that room is me. If I ever catch you in that room you will be severely punished.”

Collins nodded, signaling that she understood. She did think it was a little strange that there was a secret room in the White House, but she supposed every president probably had a room like that. Trump’s was just in the West Wing where there was always a lot of activity. Still, she couldn’t help but wonder what was behind that door that was so secret that Trump wouldn’t allow anyone else to see it.

***

Collins’ first week went by fast. There was a lot to do. She completed all of her work carefully, making sure that she did everything well, otherwise Trump might throw a tantrum.

That weekend, Trump did what he did on many other weekends. He flew to Mar-a-Lago, Florida to play golf.

Meanwhile, Collins and the rest of the White House staff went about their duties as they normally would.  

Collins spent her Saturday night organizing the president’s calendar and setting his meetings for the upcoming week. He was scheduled to give speeches on the construction of his beloved wall and his proposal for the United States Space Force.

When Collins had finished her work for the night it was late, but she was still wide awake.

She decided to go for a walk in the West Wing.

Since it was late the halls were empty. Eventually, she reached that forbidden door at the end of the hall. She stared at it inquisitively. It didn’t look any different than any other door in the West Wing. So, what made it so special?

After deliberating for a few moments, she pulled out her keycard and approached the door. The president was gone for the weekend and she was all alone, who would find out if she opened the door? All she would do was peek in and that was it, no one would be the wiser.

Collins swiped her keycard and the door unlocked with a click. She pushed it open and was immediately hit with a strong, horrible stench. It smelled vaguely familiar, but it was so overbearing that she couldn’t place it.

The room was dark and the light from the hallway wasn’t doing much to illuminate it.

Collins took a step inside the room and felt along the wall for a light switch. She finally found one and flicked it on. Then she turned around to finally see what was in the room.

What she saw was a sight so horrible she could barely process it.

The room was strewn with the corpses of dozens of dead immigrant children, the looks of sheer terror still frozen on their innocent faces. The floor of the room was covered with blood stains, some of them fresh. The walls were adorned with posters of Trump’s sneering face and the slogan, “Make America Great Again”.

In each corner of the room, there was an American flag, splattered with the blood of the children. The bloody flags were mounted on tall wooden flagpoles tipped with a bronze point. They stood there as if silently they were watching over the carnage.

Collins sank to her knees with tears in her eyes.

“They were so young, what kind of monster could do this to an innocent child?” she thought.

Just then she heard a voice behind her.

“This country will never be great if it’s full of filthy illegals exploiting the system, stealing jobs from real, hardworking Americans, and flooding our streets with crime,” Trump said, “If they won’t leave I’ll teach them a lesson, even if it means kidnapping, imprisoning, and murdering every immigrant child I can get my hands on.”

Collins struggled to her feet, slowly backing away from Trump in terror.

“You shouldn’t have opened the door,” he said, “Now I have to kill you too. I tried to warn you. It’s sad how no one wants to listen to me.”

He clamped one of his sweaty hands around her arm and started dragging her towards the door.

She struggled against his tight grip and finally broke free, running towards the back corner of the room.

“You shouldn’t have done that,” he said, licking his lips, and looking at her with a predatory grin.

He lunged toward her but tripped over one of the bodies in his path.

Collins reached for anything she could use to defend herself, her hand closed around one of the wooden flagpoles. She seized it, pulling it from its pedestal and holding it in front of her like a spear.

Trump had regained his footing and lunged toward her again with his arms out. She thrust the flagpole at him with all her strength, burying the tip of it deep in his chest.

He looked up at her in shock, then down at the bloodstain spreading rapidly across his white button-up shirt.

“Fuck you,” she said, twisting the flagpole, pushing it in deeper before letting go of it.

Trump sank to his knees, the tip of the flagpole now protruding from his back, his blood soaking the flag.

He gripped the flagpole, trying to pull it out, but his efforts were futile.

“I was only doing what was best for the country,” he sputtered, before finally slumping over, lifeless.

***

A lot happened in the weeks following Trump’s death. Vice President Mike Pence and several of the other members of Trump’s cabinet, including Jeff Sessions and Betsy DeVos were arrested for aiding Trump in the murders of hundreds of immigrant children during his presidency.

The nation was left reeling from the truth about what the President had been doing in that room. It wasn’t long before Congress appointed a new president, someone new who hadn’t been involved in the Trump Administration in any way.

Collins resigned. For years after the events in the West Wing, the faces of those dead children and their crying parents when White House officials informed them that their kids would never be coming home still haunted her dreams. But, she was glad that she had been able to help stop Trump before he was able to spread his evil any further.

 The End

 Moral: Any government policy that allows children (regardless of their citizenship status) to be ripped from the arms of their parents and imprisoned is wrong. There is no religious or moral justification for something that twisted. It doesn’t matter what your political party is, you can stand up for the people who don’t have a voice. If we don’t protect immigrants, legal or illegal, today who knows who the government will come for tomorrow. This injustice cannot be allowed to continue.

[thisdaynews]

Trump explores executive action on guns

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/trump-explores-executive-action-on-guns/

Trump explores executive action on guns

President Donald Trump speaks about the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio on Monday. | Evan Vucci/AP Photo

White House

The president and his aides are seeking options to address gun violence that would circumvent Congress.

President Donald Trump is exploring ways to use regulatory power and executive action to curb gun violence after a pair of deadly shootings over the weekend — a move driven by his aides’ belief that Congress is incapable of coalescing around consensus legislation in a heated 2020 election cycle.

White House officials on Monday said Trump and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr are “resolved” to take action after the shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. The administration is exploring solutions “that actually make an impact,” as opposed to “things that feel good,” said one Trump aide.

Story Continued Below

Trump has increasingly relied on his executive authority to address issues that have stained his administration, including the gun violence epidemic. Ten months after a teen gunman killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., last year, the Trump administration issued a new rule — at the president’s request — to ban the sale and possession of devices known as bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic firearms to simulate automatic weapons. The National Rifle Association opposed the rule, arguing at the time that bans have rarely “worked on anything.”

Following a three-week government shutdown earlier this year, Trump similarly escaped criticism from his supporters after cutting a deal that excluded wall funding by declaring a national emergency to bypass Congress and spend billions on barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. And when the Supreme Court in June blocked his administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, Trump dropped the move and instead directed federal agencies via executive order to turn over data on the citizenship and noncitizenship status of all U.S. residents.

The specific moves under consideration this time aren’t yet clear, but Trump could draw from a long menu of potential options. Current 2020 candidates and past presidential hopefuls have proposed using executive action to enforce mandatory background checks for customers of gun sellers who deal beyond a certain annual threshold, increase fines for gun manufacturers who circumvent existing regulations, establish lengthier cooling off periods for gun buyers and eliminating loopholes that, in some cases, allow individuals convicted of domestic abuse to purchase firearms. Of course, Trump could also reinstate an Obama-era regulation he undid in February 2017 that was intended to prevent mentally ill Americans from acquiring firearms.

In a nationally televised address Monday morning, the president reaffirmed his support for increasing the number of states with so-called “red-flag laws,” which would enable local officials to better identify unstable individuals who should be prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms. But Trump went further, calling for cultural changes that would end the “glorification of violence” in the U.S. and urging the Justice Department to prioritize enforcement of the death penalty against those convicted of hate crimes and mass murder.

“It is too easy today for troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence. We must stop or substantially reduce this, and it has to begin immediately,” Trump said in a 10-minute address omitting any reference to large-scale gun control efforts.

Trump has abandoned previous efforts to address gun violence in the wake of mass shootings, in addition to proposing solutions — such as arming school teachers — that a majority of congressional Democrats have already declared dead on arrival. It’s a pattern that some Republicans said they expect the president to follow once more, as he grapples with using executive authority without upsetting influential groups like the NRA or jeopardizing his support among gun rights advocates who helped elect him in 2016.

“Any action will likely be executive instead of legislative,” said one congressional aide, noting that Barr has long been a supporter of stricter gun laws.

Barr’s track record of statements about gun control caused some gun rights groups to oppose his nomination for attorney general, arguing at the time of his Senate confirmation hearing that he backed confiscation orders and gave ambiguous responses when asked if he would support a nationwide ban on semi-automatic firearms.

“He would be a disaster for the Second Amendment,” Gun Owners of America, a pro-gun nonprofit, wrote weeks before Barr’s confirmation vote in February.

A second administration official said Trump has “tremendous respect” for Barr and is looking to him for counsel. It’s no coincidence, the official said, that Trump specifically mentioned Extreme Risk Protection Orders, or red-flag laws, in his remarks Monday. (Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee in January that advancing ERPOs was “the single most important” action Congress could take “in the gun control area.”)

On Monday, Trump also said his administration would consult with social media companies on potential tools they can develop to identify radicalized individuals who may be planning future mass shootings or gloating about criminal activities.

He did not, however, mention legislation that would strengthen the federal background check system for gun sales, despite citing background checks in a pair of tweets that preceded his televised address.

Some Trump allies said the current political climate leaves the president no choice but to assert unilateral authority to address gun violence. Democratic presidential hopefuls are unlikely to embrace any proposal that stops short of banning assault weapons out of fear of reprisal from their party’s progressive base, they argue, and most Republicans seeking reelection can’t afford to disturb the gun lobby.

But others said Republicans might be willing to strike a bipartisan compromise to inoculate themselves from claims that Trump’s rhetoric has contributed to the scourge of hate crimes committed by white supremacists. Law enforcement authorities believe the alleged gunman in El Paso targeted the Hispanic community after discovering an anti-immigrant manifesto he posted online shortly before the attack, which occurred three weeks after Trump urged four minority congresswomen to “go back” to their countries of origin (though only one of the women was born outside of the United States).

“I think there is willingness to work on this on the GOP side right now. Maybe [because of] the proximity of shootings or maybe folks just want to make clear the criticism of Trump doesn’t apply to them,” said the congressional aide.

Trump endorsed background checks for gun purchases prior to running for office and has repeatedly teased Republican lawmakers of being “afraid of the NRA.”

“On gun control, you are a pragmatic centrist, someone who knows there is a vast majority of Americans who are not to the extreme left or right on this issue. They just want the killings to stop,” one of the president’s favorite newspapers, The New York Post, wrote in a staff editorial Sunday evening.

Beyond banning bump stocks, though, the Trump administration has done little to address mass shootings or the rise of white nationalist violence. It wasn’t until Monday that Trump condemned “racism, bigotry and white supremacy” in a public manner.

A senior administration official declined to provide details about the actions Trump is weighing beyond the series of broad steps he outlined in his address. “The president has clearly been impacted by these recent tragedies. You can see that in the words he delivered this morning,” the official said.

Read More

[todaynewsstories]

In full: Mahathir’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly

NEW YORK: Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed spoke on Friday (Sep 28) at the United Nations General Assembly after a 15-year absence from the world body.

In his speech, Mahathir noted that the world is worse off today than it was 15 years ago and called for a reform of the United Nations.

Advertisement

Here is the full text of his speech:

Madam President,

I would like to join others in congratulating you on your election as the President of the Seventy-Third (73rd) Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

I am confident with your wisdom and vast experience; this session will achieve the objectives of the theme for this session. I assure you of Malaysia’s fullest support and cooperation towards achieving these noble goals.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Allow me to also pay tribute to your predecessor, His Excellency Miroslav Lajcak, for his dedication and stewardship in successfully completing the work of the 72nd Session of the General Assembly.

I commend the Secretary-General and the United Nations staff for their tireless efforts in steering and managing UN activities globally.

In particular, I pay tribute to the late Kofi Annan, the seventh Secretary-General of the UN from 1997 – 2006, who sadly passed away in August this year. Malaysia had a positively strong and active engagement with the UN during his tenure.

Madam President,

The theme of this 73rd Session of General Assembly, “Making the United Nations Relevant to All People: Global Leadership and Shared Responsibilities for Peaceful, Equitable and Sustainable Societies” remains true to the aspiration of our founding fathers. The theme is most relevant and timely. It is especially pertinent in the context of the new Malaysia. The new Government of Malaysia, recently empowered with a strong mandate from its people, is committed to ensure that every Malaysian has an equitable share in the prosperity and wealth of the nation.

A new Malaysia emerged after the 14th General Election in May this year. Malaysians decided to change their government, which had been in power for 61 years, i.e., since independence. We did this because the immediate past Government indulged in the politics of hatred, of racial and religious bigotry, as well as widespread corruption. The process of change was achieved democratically, without violence or loss of lives.

Malaysians want a new Malaysia that upholds the principles of fairness, good governance, integrity and the rule of law. They want a Malaysia that is a friend to all and enemy of none. A Malaysia that remains neutral and non-aligned. A Malaysia that detests and abhors wars and violence.  They also want a Malaysia that will speak its mind on what is right and wrong, without fear or favour.  A new Malaysia that believes in co-operation based on mutual respect, for mutual gain. The new Malaysia that offers a partnership based on our philosophy of ‘prosper-thy-neighbour’.  We believe in the goodness of cooperation, that a prosperous and stable neighbour would contribute to our own prosperity and stability.

The new Malaysia will firmly espouse the principles promoted by the UN in our international engagements. These include the principles of truth, human rights, the rule of law, justice, fairness, responsibility and accountability, as well as sustainability. It is within this context that the new government of Malaysia has pledged to ratify all remaining core UN instruments related to the protection of human rights.  It will not be easy for us because Malaysia is multi-ethnic, multireligious, multicultural and multilingual. We will accord space and time for all to deliberate and to decide freely based on democracy.

Madam President,

When I last spoke here in 2003, I lamented how the world had lost its way.  I bemoaned the fact that small countries continued to be at the mercy of the powerful. I argued the need for the developing world to push for reform, to enhance capacity building and diversify the economy. We need to maintain control of our destiny.

But today, 15 years later the world has not changed much. If at all the world is far worse than 15 years ago. Today the world is in a state of turmoil economically, socially and politically.

There is a trade war going on between the two most powerful economies. And the rest of the world feel the pain.

Socially new values undermine the stability of nations and their people. Freedom has led to the negation of the concept of marriage and families, of moral codes, of respect etc.

But the worse turmoil is in the political arena. We are seeing acts of terror everywhere. People are tying bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up in crowded places. Trucks are driven into holiday crowds. Wars are fought and people beheaded with short knives. Acts of brutality are broadcast to the world live. Masses of people risk their lives to migrate only to be denied asylum, sleeping in the open and freezing to death. Thousands starve and tens of thousands die in epidemics of cholera.

No one, no country is safe. Security checks inconvenience travellers. No liquids on planes. The slightest suspicion leads to detention and unpleasant questioning.

To fight the “terrorists” all kinds of security measures, all kinds of gadgets and equipment are deployed. Big brother is watching. But the acts of terror continues.

Malaysia fought the bandits and terrorists at independence and defeated them. We did use the military. But alongside and more importantly we campaigned to win the hearts of minds of these people.

This present war against the terrorist will not end until the root causes are found and removed and hearts and minds are won.

What are the root causes? In 1948, Palestinian land was seized to form the state of Israel. The Palestinians were massacred and forced to leave their land. Their houses and farms were seized.

They tried to fight a conventional war with help from sympathetic neighbours. The friends of Israel ensured this attempt failed. More Palestinian land was seized. And Israeli settlements were built on more and more Palestinian land and the Palestinians are denied access to these settlements built on their land.

The Palestinians initially tried to fight with catapults and stones. They were shot with live bullets and arrested. Thousands are incarcerated.

Frustrated and angry, unable to fight a conventional war, the Palestinians resort to what we call terrorism.

The world does not care even when Israel breaks international laws, seizing ships carrying medicine, food and building materials in international waters. The Palestinians fired ineffective rockets which hurt no one. Massive retaliations were mounted by Israel, rocketing and bombing hospitals, schools and other buildings, killing innocent civilians including school children and hospital patients. And more.

The world rewards Israel, deliberately provoking Palestine by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

It is the anger and frustration of the Palestinians and their sympathisers that cause them to resort to what we call terrorism. But it is important to acknowledge that any act which terrify people also constitute terrorism. And states dropping bombs or launching rockets which maim and kill innocent people also terrify people. These are also acts of terrorism.

Malaysia hates terrorism. We will fight them. But we believe that the only way to fight terrorism is to remove the cause. Let the Palestinians return to reclaim their land. Let there be a state of Palestine. Let there be justice and the rule of law. Warring against them will not stop terrorism. Nor will out-terrorising them succeed.

We need to remind ourselves that the United Nations Organisation, like the League of Nations before, was conceived for the noble purpose of ending wars between nations.

Wars are about killing people. Modern wars are about mass killings and total destruction countrywide. Civilised nations claim they abhor killing for any reason. When a man kills, he commits the crime of murder. And the punishment for murder may be death.

But wars, we all know encourage and legitimise killing. Indeed the killings are regarded as noble, and the killers are hailed as heroes. They get medals stuck to their chest and statues erected in their honour, have their names mentioned in history books.

There is something wrong with our way of thinking, with our value system. Kill one man, it is murder, kill a million and you become a hero. And so we still believe that conflict between nations can be resolved with war.

And because we still do, we must prepare for war. The old adage says “to have peace, prepare for war”. And we are forever preparing for war, inventing more and more destructive weapons. We now have nuclear bombs, capable of destroying whole cities. But now we know that the radiation emanating from the explosion will affect even the country using the bomb. A nuclear war would destroy the world.

This fear has caused the countries of Europe and North America to maintain peace for over 70 years. But that is not for other countries. Wars in these other countries can help live test the new weapons being invented.

And so they sell them to warring countries. We see their arms in wars fought between smaller countries. These are not world wars but they are no less destructive. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, whole countries devastated and nations bankrupted because of these fantastic new weapons.

But these wars give handsome dividends to the arms manufacturers and traders. The arms business is now the biggest business in the world. They profit shamelessly from the deaths and destructions they cause. Indeed, so-called peace-loving countries often promote this shameful business.

Today’s weapons cost millions. Fighter jets cost about 100 million dollars. And maintaining them cost tens of millions. But the poor countries are persuaded to buy them even if they cannot afford. They are told their neighbours or their enemies have them. It is imperative that they too have them.

So, while their people starve and suffer from all kinds of deprivations, a huge percentage of their budget is allocated to the purchase of arms. That their buyers may never have to use them bothers the purveyors not at all.

Madam President,

In Myanmar, Muslims in Rakhine state are being murdered, their homes torched and a million refugees had been forced to flee, to drown in the high seas, to live in makeshift huts, without water or food, without the most primitive sanitation. Yet the authorities of Myanmar including a Nobel Peace Laureate deny that this is happening. I believe in non-interference in the internal affairs of nations. But does the world watch massacres being carried out and do nothing? Nations are independent. But does this mean they have a right to massacre their own people, because they are independent?

Madam President,

On the other hand, in terms of trade, nations are no longer independent. Free trade means no protection by small countries of their infant industries. They must abandon tariff restrictions and open their countries to invasion by products of the rich and the powerful. Yet the simple products of the poor are subjected to clever barriers so that they cannot penetrate the market of the rich. Malaysian palm oil is labelled as dangerous to health and the estates are destroying the habitat of animals. Food products of the rich declare that they are palm oil free. Now palm diesel are condemned because they are decimating virgin jungles. These caring people forget that their boycott is depriving hundreds of thousands of people from jobs and a decent life.

We in Malaysia care for the environment. Some 48% of our country remains virgin jungle. Can our detractors claim the same for their own countries?

Madam President,

 Malaysia is committed to sustainable development. We have taken steps, for example in improving production methods to ensure that our palm oil production is sustainable.  By December 2019, the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) standard will become mandatory.  This will ensure that every drop of palm oil produced in Malaysia will be certified sustainable by 2020.

Madam President,

All around the world, we observe a dangerous trend to inward-looking nationalism, of governments pandering to populism, retreating from international collaborations and shutting their borders to free movements of people, goods and services even as they talk of a borderless world, of free trade.  While globalisation has indeed brought us some benefits, the impacts have proven to be threatening to the independence of small nations. We cannot even talk or move around without having our voices and movement recorded and often used against us. Data on everyone is captured and traded by powerful nations and their corporations.

Malaysia lauds the UN in its endeavours to end poverty, protect our planet and try to ensure everyone enjoys peace and prosperity. But I would like to refer to the need for reform in the organisation. Five countries on the basis of their victories 70 over years ago cannot claim to have a right to hold the world to ransom forever. They cannot take the moral high ground, preaching democracy and regime change in the countries of the world when they deny democracy in this organisation.

I had suggested that the veto should not be by just one permanent member but by at least two powers backed by three non-permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly should then back the decision with a simple majority. I will not say more.

I must admit that the world without the UN would be disastrous. We need the UN, we need to sustain it with sufficient funds. No one should threaten it with financial deprivation.

Madam President

After 15 years and at 93, I return to this podium with the heavy task of bringing the voice and hope of the new Malaysia to the world stage.  The people of Malaysia, proud of their recent democratic achievement, have high hopes that around the world – we will see peace, progress and prosperity. In this we look toward the UN to hear our pleas.

I thank you, Madam President.

Source link

The post In full: Mahathir’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly appeared first on Today News Stories.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2OqOzTv via IFTTT

[darylelockhart]

The rising homegrown terror threat on the right

by Arie Perliger

The murder in College Park, Maryland of Richard Collins III, an African-American student who had recently been commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army and was days away from his graduation from Bowie State University, underscores the violence of America’s far-right wing. Sean Urbanski, the University of Maryland student who allegedly stabbed Collins to death, belongs to a racist Facebook group called Alt-Reich: Nation.

It makes sense that the FBI is helping the police investigate this incident as a suspected hate crime. But my 15 years experience of studying violent extremism in Western societies has taught me that dealing effectively with far-right violence requires something more: treating its manifestations as domestic terrorism.

While attacks such as the recent suicide bombing in Manchester that left 22 people dead and several dozen injured will probably continue to garner more headlines, this growing domestic menace deserves more attention than it’s getting.

Domestic terrorism

Terrorism is a form of psychological warfare. Most terrorist groups lack the resources, expertise and manpower to defeat state actors. Instead, they promote their agenda through violence that shapes perceptions of political and social issues.

Collins’ murder, if it was motivated by racist sentiments, should be treated as an act of domestic terrorism, which I define here as the use of violence in a political and social context that aims to send a message to a broader target audience. Like lynching, cross-burning and vandalizing religious sites, incidents of this kind deliberately aim to terrorize people of color and non-Christians.

I consider domestic terrorism a more significant threat than the foreign-masterminded variety in part because it is more common in terms of the number of attacks on U.S. soil. For example, my report published by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point identified hundreds of domestic terror incidents per year between 2008 and 2012.

Another report initially published in 2014 by New America Foundation on domestic incidents of extremist violence shows that excluding the Orlando nightclub massacre, between 2002-2016, far-right affiliated perpetrators conducted 18 attacks that killed 48 people in the United States, while terrorists motivated by al-Qaida’s or the Islamic State’s ideology killed 45 people in nine attacks.

The Orlando mass shooting, given its mix of apparent motives, is hard to categorize.

A spontaneous appearance

In briefings with law enforcement and policymakers, I have sometimes encountered a tendency to see U.S. right-wing extremists as a monolith. But traditional Ku Klux Klan chapters operate differently than skinhead groups, as do anti-government “patriot” and militia groups and anti-abortion extremists. Christian Identity groups, which believe Anglo-Saxons and other people of Northern European descent are a chosen people, are distinct too.

Certainly, there is some overlap. But these groups also differ significantly in terms of their methods of violence, recruitment styles and ideologies. Across the board, undermining the threat they pose requires a more sophisticated approach than investigating their criminal acts as suspected hate crimes.

In an ongoing study I’m conducting at the University of Massachusetts Lowell with several students, we have determined that, as apparently occurred with Collins’ recent murder in Maryland, many attacks inspired by racist or xenophobic sentiments may appear spontaneous. That is, no one plans them in advance or targets the victim ahead of time. Instead, chance encounters that enrage the perpetrators trigger these incidents.

Sporadic attacks with high numbers of casualties that are plotted in advance, such as Dylann Roof’s murder of nine African-Americans in a Charleston, South Carolina church, are always big news. More typical incidents of far-right violence tend to draw less attention.

The widow of Clementa Pinckney, a pastor and South Carolina lawmaker slain in the mass murder at Charleston’s Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, hugs her daughter during a 2015 memorial service for victims of that attack. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

The fatal stabbing of Taliesin Myrddin Namkai Meche and Ricky John Best aboard a train in Portland, Oregon on May 26 seems to be emerging as an exception. The alleged killer of these two white men, Jeremy Joseph Christian, attacked them with a knife after they stood up to him for haranguing two young women who appeared to be Muslim, police said. A third injured passenger is expected to survive. Much of the media coverage is focused on Christian’s violent and racist background.

Given the spontaneous nature of so much far-right violence, U.S. counterterrorism policies should, in my view, target the dissemination of white supremacist ideology, rather than just identifying planned attacks and monitoring established white supremacy groups.

An iceberg theory

The number of violent attacks on U.S. soil inspired by far-right ideology has spiked since the beginning of this century, rising from a yearly avarage of 70 attacks in the 1990s to a yearly avarage of more than 300 since 2001. These incidents have grown even more common since President Donald Trump’s election.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit that researches U.S. extremism, reported 900 bias-related incidents against minorities in the first 10 days after Trump’s election – compared to several dozen in a normal week – and the group found that many of the harassers invoked the then-president-elect’s name. Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League, a nonprofit that tracks anti-Semitism, recorded an 86 percent rise in anti-Semitic incidents in the first three months of 2017.

Beyond the terror that victimized communities are experiencing, I would argue that this trend reflects a deeper social change in American society.

The iceberg model of political extremism, initially developed by Ehud Shprinzak, an Israeli political scientist, can illuminate these dynamics.

Murders and other violent attacks perpetrated by U.S. far-right extremists compose the visible tip of an iceberg. The rest of this iceberg is under water and out of sight. It includes hundreds of attacks every year that damage property and intimidate communities, such as the recent attempted burning of an African-American family’s garage in Schodack, New York. The garage was also defaced with racist graffiti.

Data my team collected at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point show that the significant growth in far-right violence in recent years is happening at the base of the iceberg. While the main reasons for that are still not clear, it is important to remember that changes in societal norms are usually reflected in behavioral changes. Hence, it is more than reasonable to suspect that extremist individuals engage in such activities because they sense that their views are enjoying growing social legitimacy and acceptance, which is emboldening them to act on their bigotry.

Budget cuts

Despite an uptick in far-right violence and the Trump administration’s plan to increase the Department of Homeland Security budget by 6.7 percent to US$44.1 billion in 2018, the White House wants to cut spending for programs that fight non-Muslim domestic terrorism.

The federal government has also frozen $10 million in grants aimed at countering domestic violent extremism. This approach is bound to weaken the authorities’ power to monitor far-right groups, undercutting public safety.

How many more innocent people like Richard Collins III – and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai Meche and Ricky John Best – have to die before the U.S. government starts taking the threat posed by violent white supremacists more seriously?

Arie Perliger is Director of Security Studies and professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

[robinreyrshaw]

Dear Christians, It’s Not the Church’s Job to Make Us Feel Comfortable

I received this message from a self-described pastor a few days ago:

Hi Matt, I’m a pastor and I have to say I’ve read your work for a while and I find it very troubling. There is no tolerance, inclusiveness, or love in your writings. It’s hateful towards the LGBTQ community and others who don’t share your views about gay rights, reproductive rights or many other issues. Matt churches should be focusing on how to welcome people in, whether they happen to be gay, trans, feminist or any other group you denigrate. “Christians” like you and all the rest on the far right have pushed these people away for so long. Matt no matter what you or your ilk say in your backwardness and bigotry, Christians in a committed same-sex relationship and others in the LGBTQ community are following God’s design for their lives. That’s the message the church needs to spread. God is love. Love is love! Your message of hatred and exclusion should be left in the dark ages where it belongs. You should be ashamed. I will pray for you.

Hi, pastor. Three things:

One: These aren’t “my views” about gay rights and “reproductive rights,” as you refer to them. I am merely agreeing with the One who has already made His position on these subjects known.

Two: It’s not the church’s job to make us comfortable, pastor. Its job is to help to make us holy.

Yes, it should welcome all. In fact it should not only welcome but actively seek those who are lost. It should venture into the world, find the wandering sheep, and guide them back into the fold. But what it cannot do, pastor, is welcome our sin.

It should welcome the penitent thief, as Christ did, but it should not and cannot welcome his thievery. Remember, only one of the thieves crucified next to Christ was invited into paradise. The one who renounced his crimes was promised Heaven. The other, who clung to his wickedness even up until the moment of death, was not offered an invitation. I wonder, if you were there on Calvary that day, would you have lectured Christ for not being sufficiently inclusive?

You say we should welcome homosexuals and “transgenders” and people who are pro-abortion and anyone else who commits one of our culture’s trendy sins, but what you really seem to mean is that we should welcome the acts of fornication, sodomy, self-mutilation, child murder, etc. These acts are “God’s design for their lives,” you say. And I’m afraid it is on this point that you stumble headfirst into heresy.

It’s true that the church should be like the father in Christ’s parable, running to greet the son who’d squandered his inheritance on booze and prostitutes, eager to embrace and forgive him. But note how the father didn’t go out, find his son at the brothel, and say, “Son, why don’t you come and fornicate and get drunk at home? No need to change your lifestyle at all. Just come home and do whatever you want. Don’t let me cramp your style, son. Here, need some more money?”

That’s because the rebellious young man had to abandon his sin, seek forgiveness, and surrender to the will of his father. Notice that when he came home he said, “I have sinned against you and against heaven. I am not worthy to be called your son.” Now notice that he did not say, “I’ve had a lot of debauched, drunken sex and I’m proud of it. In fact, I plan to get back at it tomorrow. I’m not sorry, I won’t change, and you just need to shut up and accept it, pops. By the way, I have some hookers coming over later. Please show them to my room. Thanks.”

Continue Reading

The post Dear Christians, It’s Not the Church’s Job to Make Us Feel Comfortable appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.

from Propaganda Guard http://propagandaguard.blogspot.com/2017/01/dear-christians-its-not-churchs-job-to.html from Blogger http://robinreyrshaw.blogspot.com/2017/01/dear-christians-its-not-churchs-job-to.html