#Our Democracy is Inviolable

[calicojack1718]

Using Our Shared Beliefs About Democracy to Defend It From the Tremendous Damage of Trump's Big Lie

Reading time: 6 minutes Trump lies A LOT. Why is he considered an acceptable and viable candidate when his lies are so damaging to the shared beliefs about democracy that hold us together? How can we counter his lies?

SUMMARY: This post explores how Trump’s incessant lying and election denialism undermine democracy by manipulating shared beliefs. It highlights the insidious nature of Republican laws that suppress votes in Democratic-leaning areas while creating a facade of legitimacy. By invoking core democratic principles—such as the pursuit of a more perfect union and the belief that all people are created…

[philosophicalconservatism]

Response To post on The Rhetoric Of Democracy.

lenzer112

Ours is a constitutional republic. Very specifically NOT a democracy. Sorry not sorry you wasted all those words. Read the constitution upon which our republic is built.

philosophicalconservatism

I was wondering how long it would take for this obligatory post to appear. I suppose you must believe that Abraham Lincoln and a host of other presidents who referred to American "democracy" wasted many words as well. Our nation is best described as a democratic republic. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Obviously we are not a pure democracy. Now the nation of Iran is a constitutional republic. How much freedom does its citizens enjoy?

A crucial difference between these two types of republic is that in a Constitutional republic, democratic mechanisms can be very limited in scope. The law is absolutely sovereign and it grants those mechanisms a limited space within which to operate in order to decide small matters (which is ideal for our example above in which you have a nation with a state religion that cannot be questioned). In a democratic republic there are also principles that are to remain inviolable and unquestioned (in the U.S. they include free speech, private property etc) but they are not protected and overseen by sovereign state actors, they are overseen by the people. As Thomas Jefferson put it in a letter to John Wyche

the people of every country are the only safe guardians of their own rights.

Jefferson elsewhere insists that if the people are not up to the task the answer is not to take that responsibility away from them, but to educate them. Our system as a democratic republic furnishes us with the political instruments to overthrow every principle of government we have adopted, including our own individual liberty. No revolution is required, the means to do so exists within the system itself. The only assurance there is that our highest principles will be upheld is our own character as a people.

[drsonnet]

"Today, in this upside-down world, we feverishly await the final vote in the U.N. General Assembly on the genocide in Srebrenica, while Gaza has been destroyed, and its people starved and denied water." (Illustration by Erhan Yalvaç)

Of villains, heroes and the final act

Of villains, heroes and the final act | Opinion (archive.org)

BY FARHAN MUJAHID CHAK - MAY 14, 2024

A UNGA resolution condemning the Srebrenica genocide is developed by countries like Germany and the U.S., despite their complicity in the ongoing genocide in Gaza by supporting Israel

Ino longer believe in fairy tales, although I once did.

Raised with ideals of sacredness in life, I was taught to honor the sanctity of humanity, to champion international law, and to cherish freedom of speech as the cornerstone of societal progress. I believe the Geneva Conventions were a manifestation of our collective conscience that mandated the rules of war and held nations to account. Women and children; hospitals and schools; the elderly and infirm were inviolable. I was taught that "peaceful protest" was the quintessential liberty of a sophisticated society that understood the relationship between civic activism, social change and progress. I listened, attentively, to the lofty rhetoric and was enthralled. I would utter high-sounding words on democracy, equality and freedom, and those grand glutinous words stuck to my teeth. I was – in a way, smitten.

Head-over-heels over values that deeply resonated in me, yet I slowly became disillusioned. It became evident those hollow words were never meant to be believed, only used to establish authority and reproach others with their inhumanity. Justice was not blind, and race, color and creed mattered in the application of the law. It is in this troubled context that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) will vote on whether to declare July 11 "The International Day of Reflection and Remembrance of the 1995 Srebrenica Genocide." The complex intersection of the ongoing genocide in Palestine, the war on students and free speech on university campuses across the United States, Canada and Europe, and the former genocide in Srebrenica deserves closer scrutiny. The U.N. vote on the Bosnian genocide could not come at a more condemnable moment in world history.

On May 1, after considerable delay, a draft U.N. resolution on the Srebrenica genocide was submitted to the president of the 193-member U.N. General Assembly. Recall that in 1995, the town of Srebrenica was a U.N.-declared safe zone promised protection by a U.N. Dutch force. Dozens of able-bodied Muslim men in the town were asked to disarm, which they did. Despite that, fanatical Serb forces overran the safe zone and murdered 8,372 Muslim men and boys. Such is the perverse reality of the world we live in, that a U.N.-mandated safe haven, supposedly protected by U.N. forces, was invaded by terrorist Serb forces and a genocide ensued under their watch.

Bizarre irony

Now, a UNGA resolution on the Srebrenica genocide, partially modeled on a similar resolution for Rwanda, has been developed by several countries including Germany and the U.S. Absurdly, both are collaborators in the genocide currently underway in Gaza by direct military, economic and diplomatic support for Israel. This is the bizarre irony of being complicit in an ongoing genocide and putting forth a U.N. Resolution condemning the same.

What is the point of passing a resolution on genocide and turning a blind eye to one going on for the whole world to see? Sadly, villains need masks and no better cover than virtue. It is politics, not ethics, that is driving the U.N. Srebrenica vote. Of course, this does not diminish the necessity of it or the need to condemn the Srebrenica genocide and its denial. Still, the larger macro-level betrayal of the Geneva Conventions and International Human Rights Law by the U.S., U.K. and Germany is an indictment of the Western-led global order.

It is that outright duplicity, the sheer savagery of the genocide in Palestine, and the silencing of dissent that has provoked a whole generation of young people on campuses throughout the West. After all, they, too, were told stories about diversity, inclusion and pluralism. They were taught to condemn discrimination based on ethnicity, religion or gender. About equality before the law and the inviolability of non-combatants. They were raised to feel empowered and encouraged to peacefully organize and express their opinions. And, that society benefits when individuals exercise their civic duty. Now, they are witness to the flagrant disavowal of the moral archetypes that were instilled in them. They feel duped and are protesting, as heroes do, the enabling of genocide by their universities. Idealistic and courageous, they are sacrificing their education and careers to condemn the genocide in Palestine. Except rather than being celebrated, thousands of students have been beaten, harassed and arrested. Condemned for believing in the values that they were taught.

Now, we seem to be in the final act. One of impunity – if you will, in which we close our eyes to the genocide in Palestine, condemn students who protest it, and negotiate ways to commemorate a past genocide in Srebrenica – when ignoring it while it happened. Today, in this upside-down world, we feverishly await the final vote in the UNGA on the genocide in Srebrenica, while Gaza has been destroyed, and its people starved and denied water.

Yet, no matter the outcome of the resolution, it will not stop future genocides. Still, if nothing else, it will forever be a testament to the twisted dystopian reality in which we live and be a symbol of the urgent need for a new world order. Maybe, one faraway day, we can muster the will – for whatever purpose, and pass a U.N. resolution condemning it. Or name a highway after the martyrs. We will tell noble stories about those who were killed since it seems our twisted world only after their death feigns to honor them.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Professor of International Affairs, Visiting Research Faculty at Al Waleed Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown University

[democracyunderground]

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has called out Republicans for acquiescing to billionaire Elon Musk’s demands to thwart a bipartisan spending bill that was needed to fend off a government shutdown this weekend.

In his comments, Sanders derided Musk — who is co-leading president-elect Donald Trump’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency — as an authoritarian oligarchic.

The bipartisan spending bill that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) negotiated with Democrats would have funded the government through March. However, after Musk urged GOP lawmakers to oppose the bill, Johnson, sensing he wouldn’t have enough support from his own party, scrapped the legislation, and put up a new spending bill without Democratic Party input. That bill also failed to pass after Democrats in the House voted against it, with dozens of Republicans opposing the bill, albeit for different ideological reasons.

Musk’s influence within the Republican Party is so inviolable that some in the GOP have actually called for him to replace Johnson as Speaker of the House. Musk and Trump have said that Republicans who do not support the spending bills they endorse should be primaried out of their seats in the 2026 midterm elections. Musk has also said that he’s not opposed to shutting down the government until Trump is inaugurated in mid-January.

“Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, is threatening to unseat elected officials if they do not follow his orders to shut down the government during the holidays,” Sanders noted in a recent social media post. “Are we still a democracy or have we already moved to oligarchy and authoritarianism?”

In an earlier post, Sanders derided Musk as being an oligarch who Republicans adhered to.

“The US Congress this week came to an agreement to fund our government. Elon Musk, who became $200 BILLION richer since Trump was elected, objected,” Sanders wrote. “Are Republicans beholden to the American people? Or President Musk? This is oligarchy at work.”

Hours after Sanders’s comments, Musk signaled his support for a neo-fascist political party in Gemarny’s February elections.

In a post on his social media site X, Musk endorsed Alternative for Germany (AfD), a far right, anti-immigrant and antisemitic party that is gaining popularity among conservative Germans.

“Only the AfD can save Germany,” the billionaire wrote.

Musk has previously endorsed other far right figures in Europe, including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and United Kingdom Reform party leader Nigel Farage.

Musk has tried to normalize AfD’s views in the past, claiming they “don’t sound extremist” to him and questioning if he was “missing something.”

AfD is vehemently anti-immigration, particularly with regard to Muslims, calling for a “net zero” number of immigrants entering Germany in the coming years. Leaders of the party have repeatedly made racist and antisemitic statements, emphasizing a need to return to a German “identity” and pushing other white nationalist views; AfD leader Alexander Gauland, for example, has described immigration to the country as an “invasion of foreigners” that he and his party intend to fight off.

The party has also called for changes to how Nazi Germany is depicted in historical settings, such as monuments, schools and museums, with Gauland once minimizing the country’s Nazi history as being no more than “just a speck of bird’s muck.” Other AfD members have denied Nazi wrongdoing, including by describing the Holocaust as a “myth.”

Musk’s public support for AfD is just the latest example of the billionaire sharing reactionary viewpoints on X. Musk has, for example, called for the deportation of protesters utilizing the First Amendment to express views he disagrees with. He has also promoted antisemitic, anti-Muslim, transphobic and other bigoted content on his profile, and has shared content denying the Holocaust.

Novelist and political commentator Patrick S. Tomlinson has said that Musk’s support for AfD is illuminating.

“The AfD is Germany’s neo-Nazi party,” Tomlinson wrote on Bluesky. “They are anti-immigration, anti-EU, and unapologetically pro-Putin. The German courts have labeled the entire party extremist. Elon Musk has gone fully mask off.”

Commentator Paul Krugman also weighed in on Musk’s latest endorsement, noting that the billionaire’s statement was “obviously where he was going.”

When it comes to fascist sentiments, Musk “isn’t hiding it at all,” Krugman added.

[thatstormygeek]

That's the thing about constitutional rights: they're not meant to be politically convenient. They're meant to be inviolable. They're meant to apply to everyone, even when it's unpopular, even when defending them might not poll well in swing states.

Voters can tell when politicians are being authentic versus when they're triangulating. Newsom's dismissal of Abrego Garcia's plight as a "distraction" comes across as cold, calculated, and fundamentally phony. It's the kind of response you give when you've spent too much time with political consultants and not enough time thinking about what public service actually means.

"I don't think it's ever wrong to stand up for the Constitution. And this is not about one man. If you deny the constitutional rights of one man, you threaten the constitutional rights for everybody." That statement is more than just powerful rhetoric — it's the foundation of what constitutional democracy is supposed to be about. Van Hollen went further, saying something that should be obvious but increasingly isn't in our poll-tested political environment: "I think Americans are tired of elected officials or politicians who are all finger to the wind, what's blowing this way, what's blowing that way." ... Newsom's response to this horrific situation? It's just "the distraction of the day" and "the art of distraction." Really? A man wrongfully imprisoned in one of the world's most notorious prisons without trial or charges is merely a political distraction?

[dailyanarchistposts]

A revolutionary impasse

What an uneasy situation we’re in: whilst the need for revolution has never been greater, rarely has our grasp of what it means to build such potential seemed so vague. Perhaps this is unsurprising, given that workerism – the dominant model of anti-capitalist struggle for a century and a half – has collapsed before our very eyes. The tremors continue to reverberate, most remaining unsure of how to respond. Few are willing to give up the rhetoric of revolution, not at a time like this. And yet, it doesn’t take much to see that, in all but name, the majority of radicals have long since abandoned the prospect of actually destroying the system.

One clear indication of the current impasse is how easily supposed Bolsheviks – Leninist, Trotskyite, Stalinist – get swept up by every latest rehash of social democracy. Perhaps the most important tension underlying the history of Marxist engagement was the split between reform and revolution, exactly the point of Bolshevism being to pursue the latter. Nowadays, however, the two strands are normally lumped together, even at the price of utmost incoherence, merely for Marxism to maintain a guise of relevance into the 21st century. Surely no one who still took the revolutionary potential of the proletariat to be anything more than a buzzword would find themselves campaigning for Syriza or Podemos, Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders. Since the 2007 financial crash, the Left has played a sly game, gaining favour amongst the young by utilising vaguely revolutionary sentiments – slogans of “people power” and “real democracy,” stolen from the anti-politics of grassroots movements like Occupy and 15M – to dress up its lukewarm parliamentary policies. Bear in mind, though, that such duplicity remains concealed only for as long as the crypto-politicians fail to seize power, their cover instantly blown if they ever manage to win at the ballot. The functions of state and capital have always proven inviolable when approached from the inside. A glum image comes to mind, one of Syriza carrying out EU-dictated austerity measures, even in open defiance of a nationwide referendum, thereby betraying the very platform that secured them the right to govern in 2015. This is exactly what a “victory” for such a party looks like.

Of course, this problem is hardly faced by Marxists alone. Nor is the issue as superficial as many anarchists finding themselves requesting the hand of governance every once in a while. Bookchin, for example, showed as much appreciation as anyone for the great libertarian upheavals of the past, including the Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution. Throughout the course of his life, however, it slowly became clear that such admiration was mainly retrospective, lacking any serious designs on the future. Already in 1985, he declared in a speech that “the revolutionary era in the classical sense is over” – a shrewd observation. It could have been the basis for reconceiving the possibility of revolution in the post-industrial era, only it was used to give up on the idea altogether. The alternative Bookchin offered was termed “libertarian municipalism,” which proposes engaging in municipal elections with the aim of putting local councils under anarchist control. Yet it will come as no surprise that Bookchin eventually gave up on the hopeless idea of convincing anarchists to become politicians, to the extent he even publicly dissociated himself from anarchism in 1999. The significance of this outcome – one of the key theorists of contemporary anarchism turning his back on the very possibility of revolution – can hardly be overstated.

Another major attempt to divorce anarchism from revolutionary struggle came from Hakim Bey, this time in the book Temporary Autonomous Zone (1991). One of the main claims offered here is that “realism demands not only that we give up waiting for ‘the Revolution’ but also that we give up wanting it.” Not only is the supremacy of the state supposedly unassailable nowadays, apparently there’s also little chance of attacking authority without inadvertently becoming it. What ensues is a curiously dignified take on the simple fact of giving up, a hedonistic defeatism focused around occupying the accidental cracks of autonomy left unattended by the system. Such zones are defined as temporary precisely because there’s no intention to defend or extend them, the point being to remain invisible to power for as long as possible, scampering away and setting up elsewhere whenever confronted. This might seem like the most hopeless of the examples mentioned here, even the most pitiful; yet that’s only because Bey is so upfront regarding his pessimism. At least he nonetheless stays true to the need to live anarchy now, rather than spending our lives merely dreaming of it.

A final example on the topic comes from Deep Green Resistance (DGR). This radical environmentalist group distinguished themselves with a hard-nosed strategy for uprooting industrial civilisation altogether, something that won them the hearts of many libertarians. The kind of unflinching overhaul of vision and tactics DGR offers is all too rare at the moment, especially as the ecological situation really starts to bite. Yet this can be the only explanation for how such an irredeemably flawed approach enjoyed its relative success – that is, the sad fact it has so few contenders. It’s clear this already tired clique has taken the abandonment of revolution as a central point of departure, assuming in line with co-founder Derrick Jensen that “the mass of civilised people will never be on our side” (Endgame, 2006). This leads to a terribly muddled strategy: having jettisoned a commitment to popular upheaval, DGR offers the hilarious proposal that industrial civilisation itself could be brought down – not to mention kept down – by the activity of a relative handful of professional activists. What an odd combination: on the one hand, DGR seem to recognise the problems inherent in activism, that the current approach will never initiate mass struggle; on the other hand, however, they’ve extended the task of the activist milieu beyond any semblance of credibility. Whilst DGR once held a fair degree of influence, this trend flopped very quickly indeed, not least because of their rampant transphobia. And that was only a particular symptom of a much more general problem, namely, their obnoxious insistence on building a rigidly hierarchical, ideologically uniform resistance movement that reeks of eco-Leninism.

These examples are diverse, yet each of them stems from exactly the same sense of dejection regarding our revolutionary prospects nowadays. Some anarchists have attempted to escape such associations, at times even exploiting the moment to label themselves the only revolutionaries in town. But that comes across as all too certain: it’s become increasingly clear that to be an anarchist does not entail one is also a revolutionary, certainly not any more – a point both interesting and terrible. Revolution, after all, is no game of abstract identities, but instead the art of putting into practice. It would be much healthier to take a step back at this point, if only to get a clearer picture of the current impasse. We need to get our heads round the end of the classical era of revolutions. (And then immediately set out to define the next).

[todaysdocument]

"Loyalty towards a Country or a Nation...is a covenant..."

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United StatesSeries: Criminal Case FilesFile Unit: United States of America vs. Kiyoshi Okamoto, et. al.

Loyalty towards a Country or a Nation is a m[a]tter of the sentiment. It is nurtured from a knowledge of justice received. It is a covenant of faith between the party of the People on the one hand and the Party of the Government on the other. Under this understanding, the People maintain the inviolability of our Instruments of Government. For this service, the Government assume the responsibilities of justice, freedom, liberty and security to It's Inhabitants. Under such an interpretation, the President terminated the agreement when he caused to be evacuated 112,000 People without due process of law. In so doing, he violated the very fundamentals of our democratic form of government. He disregarded the guarantees of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He caused us into Citizens without a Country. By these acts, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights become of doubtful value as Instruments guaranteeing Life, Liberty, Justice, Freedom and Security. With these conditions, where does our Country need us the most--on the home front where justice, freedom, democracy and liberty are slapped on the face or, on foreign battlefields to uphold dubious ideals and Principles? We believe a correct understanding must be had at this time between true patriotism and loyalty on the one hand and from regimented concept of misguided interpretations on the other. We believe the first duty of every true and loyal Citizen is the protection of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The cornerstone of these Instruments of our Government are Justice, Liberty, Security, Freedom, and the protection of Humane Rights. These are flagrantly violated in the various procedures of our evacuation, deportation and detention. We believe the issue forced upon us is sufficently vital as to warrant a decided attitude...not only for our benefit but, as a safeguard to our hitherto free and democratic form of government. It is vital as an issue of National defense if Democracy is to exist. [STRIKETHROUGH] If we are loyal and patriotic Citizens, we must keep an eagle eye on ten cent leaders who are unable to see beyond the 12-16-19 dollars paid them by the W. R. A.[END STRIKETHROUGH] Thus, to be drafted or not to be drafted or, to be loyal or not to be loyal as Citizens with suspended Rights are not the questions at issue. To us, the fundamentals of Democracy is at stake. In the preservation of the ideals and principles of freedom, justice and democratic practices as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights within our own home front lie any hope to validate and justify any utterances of freedoms and democracies. We must rectify the breaches made upon the guarantees of justice, freedom and democratic practices by the Roosevelt Administration. THEREBY, AS TRUE AND LOYAL CITIZENS OF THIS NATION, WE ASK A FIRST CLARIFICATION OF OUR STATUS AND RIGHTS AS FORCED[full transcription at link]

[bopinion]

2024 / 36 - Abridged vacation edition

Aperçu of the week

“Human dignity is inviolable.”

(Article 1 of the Basic Law, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany)

Bad News of the Week

It is well known that life in Afghanistan is not exactly a paradise. The Taliban rule with an absolute power that interferes so deeply in people's everyday lives that it can safely be described as invasive. Now a new law of the guardians of morality is coming into force, which - of course - further restricts the lives of women.

Men are not allowed to wear shorts or to practice martial arts. And must grow a beard if working in public service. But that is nothing compared to the restrictions for women. They are only allowed to attend school up to the 6th grade, are virtually excluded from working life, must always be fully veiled and are not even allowed to leave the house without a male escort. Now even singing or speaking out loud is forbidden - with the threat of a prison sentence. Why? Because the female voice is seductive and men should not be tempted.

Ravina Shamdasani from the UN Human Rights Office in Geneva puts her horror at this development into words: “The newly passed law cements a policy that completely erases women in public life, silences them and takes away their independence by trying to turn them into faceless, mute shadows. That is intolerable!”

The fact that the German government wants to negotiate with the Taliban right now about the repatriation of rejected asylum seekers is at least as intolerable. This is, of course, a reaction to the completely exaggerated cries of the extreme parties that the allegedly excessive migration is the root of all evil. And, in my opinion, it calls into question the principle of asylum. Because the definition of “imminent threat to life” should also include the absence of fundamental human rights: a life that is not worth living is just an existence.

Good News of the Week

German democracy is celebrating its 75th anniversary. After the darkest chapter in its history, the Germans have created the foundations of a liberal, egalitarian society with a democratic basic order. With a classic division of powers in the legislative, executive and judicial branches, unshakeable principles of human rights, freedom and social participation as well as balanced federalism.

The Bundestag (parliament) and Bundesrat (representation of the federal states) are therefore celebrating their birthday. They look back on the past with satisfaction, but express concerns about the future. Liberal democracy is under pressure from authoritarian forces worldwide, says former Federal Minister of the Interior Gerhart Baum in a speech. At 91, he is also a contemporary witness and knows what he is talking about. Bundestag President Bärbel Bas commented: “We can overcome crises - despite tough controversies. Our democracy is strong and resilient against all those who want to harm it." If she is right, Germany can look to the future with confidence.

Personal happy moment of the week

My own children finally got to meet my sisters' children (from my youthful stay abroad in Canada 37 years ago). And it was as if they had known each other forever. I would be very happy if that would last - even across the Atlantic and across time.

I couldn't care less...

...that the US Republican campaign team feels disadvantaged that the film “The Apprentice” about the dubious rise of Donald Trump is now being released in US cinemas before the elections. The guy is already getting away with his delaying tactics in so many (even court!) proceedings that I'm pleased about every confrontation that actually takes place. And that confronts him with his infinite body of lies.

It's fine with me...

...that an international comparative study has now also confirmed the positive effect of a cell phone ban in schools. Researchers at the Chair of School Education at the University of Augsburg came to this conclusion and published their findings in the journal Education Sciences: a smartphone ban has measurably positive effects on the social well-being of pupils and on their learning performance. Our school has been doing this since the first iPhone. And is obviously right to do so.

As I write this...

...the - voted out - democrats in the eastern German states are trying to form majorities without the radical right-wing AfD (Alternative für Deutschland / Alternative for Germany). This party owes it above all to the very young and the very old voters to have become the second strongest (in Saxony) or even the strongest (in Thuringia) party in the state elections. Sometimes democracy has to act against the declared will of the voters in order to protect itself.

Post Scriptum

The summer of 2024 was warmer than ever before since complete records began in 1940. According to the EU climate service Copernicus, the current year as a whole is also heading for a record high. In the past, people would have been happy about “the nice weather”. Today, people are afraid of the next forest fire and water sources drying up. And we are still not prepared to do what is necessary.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Islamophobia was invented to silence those Muslims who question the Koran and who demand equality of the sexes.

By: Pascal Bruckner

Published: Jan 3, 2011

At the end of the 1970s, Iranian fundamentalists invented the term "Islamophobia" formed in analogy to "xenophobia". The aim of this word was to declare Islam inviolate. Whoever crosses this border is deemed a racist. This term, which is worthy of totalitarian propaganda, is deliberately unspecific about whether it refers to a religion, a belief system or its faithful adherents around the world.

But confession has no more in common with race than it has with secular ideology. Muslims, like Christians, come from the Arab world, Africa, Asia and Europe, just as Marxists, liberals and anarchists come or came from all over. In a democracy, no one is obliged to like religion, and until proved otherwise, they have the right to regard it as retrograde and deceptive. Whether you find it legitimate or absurd that some people regard Islam with suspicion – as they once did Catholicism – and reject its aggressive proselytism and claim to total truth – this has nothing to do with racism.

Do we talk about 'liberalophobia' or 'socialistophobia' if someone speaks out against the distribution of wealth or market domination. Or should we reintroduce blasphemy, abolished by the revolution in 1791, as a statutory offence, in line with the annual demands of the "Organisation of the Islamic Conference".  Or indeed the French politician Jean-Marc Roubaud, who wants to see due punishment for anyone who "disparages the religious feelings of a community or a state". Open societies depend on the peaceful coexistence of the principal belief systems and the right to freedom of opinion. Freedom of religion is guaranteed, as is the freedom to criticise religions. The French, having freed themselves from centuries of ecclesiastical rule, prefer discretion when it comes to religion. To demand separate rights for one community or another, imposing restrictions on the right to question dogma is a return to the Ancien Regime.

The term "Islamophobia" serves a number of functions: it denies the reality of an Islamic offensive in Europe all the better to justify it; it attacks secularism by equating it with fundamentalism. Above all, however, it wants to silence all those Muslims who question the Koran, who demand equality of the sexes, who claim the right to renounce religion, and who want to practice their faith freely and without submitting to the dictates of the bearded and doctrinaire. It follows that young girls are stigmatised for not wearing the veil, as are French, German or English citizens of Maghribi, Turkish, African or Algerian origin who demand the right to religious indifference, the right not to believe in God, the right not to fast during Ramadan. Fingers are pointed at these renegades; they are delivered up to the wrath of their religions communities in order to quash all hope of change among the followers of the Prophet.

On a global scale, we are abetting the construction of a new thought crime, one which is strongly reminiscent of the way the Soviet Union dealt with the "enemies of the people". And our media and politicians are giving it their blessing. Did not the French president himself, never one to miss a blunder - not compare Islamophobia with Antisemitism? A tragic error. Racism attacks people for what they are: black, Arab, Jewish, white. The critical mind on the other hand undermines revealed truths and subjects the scriptures to exegesis and transformation. To confuse the two is to shift religious questions from an intellectual to a judicial level. Every objection, every joke becomes a crime.

The desecration of graves or of places of worship is naturally a matter for the courts. In France, for the most part it is Christian graveyards or churches that are affected. Let us not forget that today, of all the monotheist religions, Christianity is the most persecuted – particularly in Islamic countries such Algeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey or Egypt. It is easier to be a Muslim in London, New York or Paris than a Protestant or Catholic in the Middle East or North Africa. But the term "Christianophobia" does not function – and that's a good thing. There are words which taint language, which obscure meaning. "Islamophobia" is one of the words that we urgently need to delete from our vocabulary.

==

Iranian Islamists invented "Islamophobia."

[nesiacha]

The Ideal Republic:

I don't know about you, but in France, there's increasingly justified complaints that the representative system is completely out of touch with its people. We need more democracy, better representation. A profound system change to address our problems. I would like a Republic with a president refusing to live in the Presidential Palace but rather in his apartment like the majority of French people, as President Mujica did. He would be less disconnected from the reality of the people because he would live among the majority of them (similarly to how French revolutionaries worked at the Tuileries but didn't live there). The case of President Mujica should no longer be an exception but the rule. The presidential palace should serve only as a workplace and to receive foreign dignitaries. All government members, including deputies, should now live with a salary decrease similar to that of the majority of French people. We can't ask the people to make efforts if we don't practice them ourselves. I would like a model based on the First Republic with a much more controlled executive, divided in the General Assembly as the Republicans proclaimed. I would like a new constitution as close as possible to that of 1793. Like the First Republic, I would like citizens who are not part of the government or the General Assembly to take the stand to voice their demands, difficulties, criticisms, absolutely everything. Government members who are under investigation by justice should no longer receive any special treatment. We citizens don't benefit from it, so why should they? After all, it is the government that should serve the people, not the other way around. Referendums should be well conducted, well respected, ensuring that the fundamental rights acquired after many struggles remain respected as inviolable rights (abolition of the death penalty, right to abortion, marriage for all, etc.). Social progress should continue even if it might displease some… Only this Republic could be the one that meets our needs… But I don't think I'll see it one day… Anyway, I've always thought that the rights we've acquired have only come after years of struggle, that revolutions happen in different periods. The most recent example that comes to mind is the one where we almost had a revolution in May 1968. There will surely be another day, we will have a real program for the people again, then it will be fought and it will be a cycle… But every concession we wrestle is a victory, and that's not a reason to give up (for example: there were real social revolutions in 1792, in 1830, in 1848, and in 1870, for example, even if in the end there were always regressions or the fact that these revolutions were buried or failed, they managed to secure very significant concessions and always to rise again, without all these revolutionaries we might even have been at risk of losing all our rights, we wouldn't have had them at all).

[therecordchanger62279]

THE REAL 4TH OF JULY

There is nothing you need to know about our government, and our Democracy that can't be found in the writings, and texts of the Founding Fathers. It's a good idea to re-read their words now and then so that we don't lose sight of who we are supposed to be as a nation. Below is a sampling of some of the best.

..........................

A little matter will move a party, but it must be something great that moves a nation.

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity: And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from our sight.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing.

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791

A rigid economy of the public contributions and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses will go far towards keeping the government honest and unoppressive.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Lafayette, 1823

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.

Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1789

A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 31, January 1, 1788

Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 20, December 11, 1787

If it be asked, what is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last.... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.

Alexander Hamilton, Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, Aug 28, 1794

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Be in general virtuous, and you will be happy.

Benjamin Franklin, letter to John Alleyne, August 9, 1768

Finally, there seem to be but three Ways for a Nation to acquire Wealth. The first is by War as the Romans did in plundering their conquered Neighbours. This is Robbery. The second by Commerce which is generally Cheating. The third by Agriculture the only honest Way; wherein Man receives a real Increase of the Seed thrown into the Ground, in a kind of continual Miracle wrought by the Hand of God in his favour, as a Reward for his innocent Life, and virtuous Industry.

Benjamin Franklin, Positions to be Examined, April 4, 1769

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

James Madison, letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822

All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.

James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 1787

Conscience is the most sacred of all property.

James Madison, Essay on Property, March 29, 1792

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.

George Washington, letter to Francis Van der Kamp, May 28, 1788

In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

All quotes can be found, along with hundreds more at: http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/

© 2023

[so-true-overdue]

The Art of Snark: A First Amendment Odyssey

Snark, that delightful cocktail of wit and sarcasm, has long been the lifeblood of free expression. It is the linguistic equivalent of a raised eyebrow, a sardonic smile, or a well-timed eye roll. Yet, in a world where the government occasionally fancies itself as the arbiter of acceptable discourse, the very essence of snark is under siege. Yes, dear reader, the government threatening retaliation for voicing opinions is not merely a faux pas; it is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment: A Bastion of Liberty

The First Amendment, that venerable guardian of free speech, was enshrined in the United States Constitution to ensure that citizens could express their thoughts without fear of governmental retribution. It is the bedrock of a free society, a bulwark against tyranny, and, most importantly, the enabler of our beloved snark. When the government threatens to retaliate against individuals for their opinions, it is not just overstepping its bounds; it is trampling on the very principles that underpin democracy.

Historical Precedents: Lessons from the Past

History, that ever-reliable teacher, offers us a plethora of examples where governmental overreach has been met with resistance and, ultimately, reform. Consider the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which sought to criminalize criticism of the government. The public outcry was swift and fierce, leading to the Acts’ eventual repeal and the election of Thomas Jefferson, a staunch advocate for free speech.

Fast forward to the 20th century, when the Supreme Court, in cases like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, reinforced the notion that speech, even if critical or satirical, is protected under the First Amendment. These historical precedents serve as a clarion call to resist any attempts by the government to stifle dissent.

Pre-Bunking Criticisms: The Naysayers’ Lament

Critics may argue that certain opinions are too dangerous or inflammatory to be protected. However, this argument is as flimsy as a house of cards in a hurricane. The very purpose of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech, for popular speech needs no protection. The marketplace of ideas thrives on diversity of thought, and it is through the clash of differing opinions that truth emerges.

Calls to Action: The Power of the People

So, what can we, the purveyors of snark and defenders of free speech, do in the face of governmental hostility? First, we must remain vigilant, ever ready to challenge any encroachments on our rights. Second, we must engage in robust dialogue, using our words as both shield and sword. Finally, we must support organizations and individuals who champion free expression, ensuring that the First Amendment remains inviolate.

Conclusion: Snark as a Symbol of Freedom

In conclusion, snark is more than just a rhetorical flourish; it is a symbol of freedom. The government’s threats of retaliation for voicing opinions are not just an affront to snark but an affront to liberty itself. By drawing on historical lessons, pre-bunking criticisms, and taking decisive action, we can ensure that the First Amendment continues to protect our right to speak freely, with all the snark we can muster. After all, in the grand tapestry of democracy, snark is the thread that keeps the fabric vibrant and resilient.

[chrinopiqua]

Cyberstate Evolution: A Blueprint for the AI Singularity

1. Megacorp Sovereignty: Beyond Traditional Nation-States

Corporate Cyberstates: International corporations are granted state-like powers, operating with autonomous, digital constitutions that blend corporate efficiency with the flexibility of a modern cyber government. Think of it as the ultimate upgrade—corporations that transcend borders, wielding the kind of influence that makes outdated nation-states look like relics.

Employee Digital Citizenship: Every worker becomes a citizen of the corporate state, equipped with a digital passport that unlocks global mobility, enhanced personal data protection, and voting rights on both corporate and civic issues. This isn’t just a perk—it’s an evolution in personal empowerment.

2. AI-Driven Global Governance

UN 2.0 Representation: Corporate states earn seats in a revamped United Nations where decision-making is powered by advanced AI analytics and real-time global data. Representation isn’t based solely on population anymore—it’s weighted by economic, technological, and innovation metrics that matter in the singularity age.

Cyber Council of Sovereigns: Establish a futuristic council (think neon-lit, decentralized blockchain forums) where corporate states and traditional nations negotiate policies, share technological breakthroughs, and settle disputes with AI-facilitated arbitration. This ensures agility and transparency in global governance.

3. Tech-Forward Economic and Social Perks

Digital Tax Ecosystems: Corporations negotiate cross-border tax treaties using smart contracts on blockchain platforms. This cuts red tape, reduces corruption, and ensures that revenues are efficiently channeled into next-gen infrastructure—like urban megastructures and AI research labs.

Innovation Incubators & Virtual Zones: Corporate states create “innovation zones”—dedicated spaces where experimental policies and futuristic tech can be trialed without the constraints of outdated regulations. Picture zones where digital art, biotech, and cybernetics are incubated under a lens of rigorous, AI-enhanced oversight.

Enhanced Cybersecurity & Data Sovereignty: With state-like status, corporate states become guardians of digital privacy and cybersecurity. They adopt next-generation encryption and quantum computing defenses, ensuring that citizen data remains inviolable against rogue AIs and cyber threats.

4. A Radical Social Contract for the Singularity Era

Employee-Driven Governance: Move beyond the boardroom—create a decentralized, digital democracy where employees directly influence policy through secure, blockchain-based voting systems. This hyper-participatory model not only decentralizes power but also sparks innovation in corporate strategy.

Transhumanist Benefits: Embrace a transhumanist future where corporate citizens gain access to cutting-edge healthcare, cybernetic enhancements, and AI-guided personal development programs. The result? A workforce that’s not just motivated but evolved—pushing the boundaries of human potential.

Global Cultural Exchange & Cyber Mobility: With digital passports and cyberstate-backed travel, corporate citizens can traverse both physical and virtual worlds effortlessly. This creates a melting pot of ideas and cultures, further fueling innovation and global collaboration.

5. Transitioning to a Cyberpunk Reality

From Dystopia to Utopia?: Sure, there’s a fine line between cyberpunk chic and corporate dystopia. But by embedding strong digital rights, transparent AI oversight, and decentralized dispute resolution, we’re designing a system that safeguards against the worst excesses of authoritarian control.

AI as the Ultimate Arbiter: In this vision, AI isn’t a tyrant—it’s a tool. Algorithms ensure accountability, fairness, and efficiency in every facet of corporate governance. These systems aren’t perfect, but with continuous human-AI collaboration, they can be refined into robust guardians of our new cyber order.

Summary

Corporate Cyberstates: International corporations morph into state-like entities with digital constitutions and cyber sovereignty.

Digital Citizenship: Employees gain global, blockchain-verified citizenship that grants voting rights, mobility, and enhanced protections.

Next-Gen Global Governance: A reimagined UN with AI-driven analytics and a Cyber Council fosters agile, transparent international policymaking.

Tech-Forward Perks: Smart contract tax systems, innovation zones, and cutting-edge cybersecurity pave the way for a hyper-efficient economy.

Transhumanist Social Contract: Enhanced benefits, employee-driven governance, and transhumanist healthcare propel society toward a singularity future.

Balancing Act: Strong digital rights and AI oversight ensure that this radical reimagining avoids dystopian pitfalls, harnessing technology to empower rather than control.

This isn’t just a proposal—it’s a manifesto for a future where the lines between corporation and state blur, unleashing a new era of global dynamism and personal empowerment. Strap in: the transition to a cyberpunk singularity is not only inevitable, it’s already underway.