#equal and inalienable right

[mesetacadre]

There are very few things I find more sinister than liberalism's consistent refusal to acknowledge reality outside of the world of their ideals. We sometimes pass around the more egregious examples of this and ridicule the disconnect, but at its core it's something very unsettling.

To the reality of a normalized systematic violation of people's dignity and life, liberalism's only answer is to close its eyes, recite the 1949 declaration of human rights or whatever other document it finds more suitable, and declares those transgressions to be illegal. Where is the inalienability of the right to shelter or food when struggling workers are evicted and left homeless to die of exposure because the bank or the landlord did not get paid? Where is the equality of every human at birth when more than half of the earth's population was condemned at the moment of their birth to forever toil for a foreign or national capitalist extracting their land's wealth? Where is the right to equality under the law when each and every judicial system so clearly favors those who provide the courtroom's electricity? Where is the right to freedom of expression when the bourgeoisie's media conglomerates slander every organized member of our class and forever maintain the monopoly of debate? Where is the representation in electoral systems without any accountability measures beyond a choice every 4-5 years and which consistently defends the interests of a class foreign to our own?

You see, every single one of these examples is simply a glitch, a fault in the perfect liberal system. And it does not matter how permanent these supposedly incidental flaws are, because the system is supposed to work for everyone. Things really aren't that complicated, you unruly worker, you traitorous agent. Why don't you keep on producing value like a good little laborer and let our analysts and economists tell you how good your life really is?

Liberalism's school of thought requires disdain for the social majority, because it also requires a total indifference to the unrelenting pain and indignity our class suffers, especially in the imperliazed world. The way in which that indifference manifests is vile too. Not only does liberalism cause, protect, and worsen the exploitation on which it stands, it also cries crocodile tears at its own inhumanity. It offers a myriad of solutions, based on its nominal ideas of an incorporeal justice and freedom. But the same hand it offers us is the same hand with which it pushes us down further into the sea of injustice that it created.

And what happens when the subjects become tired and aware of this game? The patina of compassion and justice is scrubbed off, revealing the intricate structure of capital. It will use every resource avaliable to slander, sabotage, mutilate, rape, traumatize, torture, murder every single worker who dares to build a world for themselves. In spite of the sheer brutality deployed every time, sometimes it's not enough and we win. And it makes sure every other worker either forgets it ever happened, or creates an vilified image of it. Afterwards, of course, the mask of normalcy returns.

There is no endgame for liberalism, no ultimate real purpose. The normal affair of things will continue to function as they always have, the same interests will be defended, the same threats and punishments will be levied against the working class, the same things will continue to worsen, and capital will continue to reproduce. No one is less aware of what liberalism defends than liberals themselves. And at the same time, no one else has such a sharp intuition of exactly what they are supposed to defend. No common liberal will ever willingly tell you that they support the violence we suffer constantly, but oh will the hairs at the back of their necks stand up when you ever dare to question their status quo.

[fipindustries]

ill say, for as cringe as hey might sometimes be, i prefer a thousand billion hundred times comedians that come from spaces like mbmbam and dropout and critical rol and smosh than the putrid clique of the joe rogan podcast and similar places, if nothing else by sheer dint of the fact the first group comes across as simply better people.

and to go even further than that, these last few years have left me with a pretty strong dislike for the generation X in general. the type of guys who were in their twenties and thirties watching south park or avenue Q or george carlin and learned all the wrong lessons from them. they just seem to operate on thought terminating cliches like "im not racist! i hate everyone equally! hyuck hyuck!" or "the truth is always in the middle" or "when you think about it nothing really matters, we are just stupid monkeys in a tiny rock in the middle of space" and other stupid bits of "common wisdom". they are all so cynical, so brain rotted by nihilism, they seem to reject the idea that one should seriously worry about anything, that to care and act in accordance is to be a loser and a busybody and that you fell for some kind of grift. and they think that makes them sound enlightened. and of course you can never criticize them on any of it because their answer is "i dont know anything, man, im just an idiot saying whatever comes to my mind". i despise it with every fiber of my being. this embrace of stupidity and meaninglessness as a way to evade the responsability of actually thinking seriously about stuff, to take ideas seriously.

what's worse is that is always so fake and disengenious because the second you talk about taking away their marihuana or telling them about how there are slurs that not appropiate to say, suddenly they become the most principled defenders of the inalienable human rights based on the self evident moral truth that they should be free to do whatever they fuck they want without any criticism.

is sheer unexamined immaturity.

[argumate]

ideally Jefferson already said everything that needs to be said:

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness

except of course you need to add yes even women, yes even foreigners, yes even those weird guys nobody likes, etc. etc. etc. because people are always assuming that certain people don't count.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The UN Charter compromised its commitments to racial equality and colonial liberation by adding clauses that made state sovereignty paramount. The Charter’s Article I stated that one of the UN’s prime purposes was “encouraging … fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” Yet the major powers at San Francisco also inserted a legal loophole, Article II (7), providing that none of the charter’s clauses would allow the organization “to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” With this sweeping limitation on the equality promised under Article I, South Africa protected apartheid, Britain exempted its colonial empire, and the bloc of Southern states in the US Congress saw no threat to racial segregation. Indeed, the American delegate John Foster Dulles, a Republican conservative and future secretary of state, crafted Article II (7) precisely to avoid any international pressure for reform of what he called “the Negro problem in the South”—code words for the harsh system of racial segregation that had succeeded slavery. This loophole was so large and so controversial that it plunged the UN into two years of intense debates over human rights, culminating in the unanimous approval of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 that proclaimed “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family."

Alfred W. McCoy, To Govern the Globe: World Orders and Catastrophic Change

[whencyclopedia]

Gabriel's Rebellion

Gabriel's Rebellion (30 August 1800) was a carefully planned slave revolt in Virginia orchestrated by the literate slave blacksmith Gabriel (l. c. 1776-1800), property of one Thomas Prosser, and so referred to as Gabriel Prosser. The plans for the revolt were betrayed before it could be set in motion, and Gabriel and his supporters were hanged.

Gabriel's Rebellion terrified the White population because the plans laid were so extensive – with a goal of nothing less than the freedom of all enslaved Black people in slave-holding states, starting with Virginia – and the deaths of all White people who opposed liberation and supported slavery. The plan was to take the arsenal at Richmond, Virginia, equip an army of slaves, take Governor James Monroe (l. 1758-1831) hostage (the same James Monroe who would later become the fifth president of the United States), and work outwards from the city to emancipate all enslaved people.

Had he not been betrayed, historians speculate, Gabriel's plan could have worked, and it is this aspect of the revolt that caused Whites the greatest fear in that, if something like this could happen once, it might again, and, in fact, it did in 1822 when another literate slave, Denmark Vesey (l. c. 1767-1822), made the same attempt in South Carolina.

Although a slave, Gabriel was hired out as a skilled blacksmith to others and traveled widely in the region, so he was able to personally make contact with co-conspirators in planning the revolt, which was set for 30 August 1800. A heavy rainstorm stalled the uprising, however, giving some of the participants a chance to rethink their position, and two slaves, Pharaoh and Tom, belonging to Prosser's neighbor, Mosby Sheppard, told their master about the revolt. Sheppard then sent a letter to James Monroe, and the alarm was raised.

The planned revolt may have inspired later insurrections, including Denmark Vesey's conspiracy and Nat Turner's Rebellion (1831). Prior to Gabriel's Rebellion, the last major slave uprising was the Stono Rebellion (1739) in what was then the British colony of South Carolina. Gabriel's Rebellion seems to have been more carefully planned than the Stono Rebellion, and, once discovered, it resulted in the same kinds of harsh slave laws in Virginia in 1800 as South Carolina enacted after the Stono Rebellion of 1739.

In 2002, Richmond, Virginia, celebrated Gabriel as a freedom fighter through a resolution commemorating his execution, and, in 2007, the governor of Virginia pardoned Gabriel and the 25 others who were convicted and executed with him.

Background & Gabriel Prosser

The revolt was inspired by the American Revolution (1765-1789), the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), the French Revolution (1789-1799), and the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804), and of these, the American Revolution seems to have had the greatest influence, as noted by scholar Douglas R. Egerton:

The very real possibility of liberty, absent before 1775, combined with the incessant white rhetoric of liberty and equality, emboldened the slaves and gave them hope. However much white revolutionaries might try to limit the implications of their words, the significance of 1776 was not lost on black Virginians.

(Gabriel's Rebellion, 7)

Scholar Stephen B. Oates agrees, writing:

The leaders were chiefly skilled urban slaves who had become highly politicized by the rhetoric of the American and French revolutions – by the enlighted ideal that all men were born equal, that all enjoyed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and had a natural right to rebel when those rights were denied. So stated America's cherished Declaration of Independence, yet somehow its noble principles applied only to white people.

(16)

South Carolina had enacted harsher slave laws following the Stono Rebellion of 1739, but Virginia, which also had a large enslaved Black population, had not followed suit. In fact, there was a large free Black community in Virginia c. 1800 due to the efforts of abolitionist evangelicals during the Great Awakening, refugees from the Haitian Revolution, and the work of the Methodists and Quakers, who encouraged abolition. Free men and those slaves who were skilled artisans traveled through Virginia without restrictions, and there was nothing alarming about a slave, like Gabriel, traveling on his own from place to place. Egerton writes:

The conspiracy cannot be divorced from the world of Richmond in the years following the American Revolution. The leading conspirators were slaves, to be sure, but they were slaves who lived and labored in an urban culture that was unusual if not nearly unique in the South. Richmond at the turn of the century had just under six thousand residents. Half of the population was black and about one-fifth of the blacks were free. And, as inhabitants of Virginia, a state with a free black population that was growing rapidly because of manumission and economic change, the border South conspirators dreamed realistic dreams of freedom.

At the heart of the web the conspirators were spinning stood Prosser's Gabriel. Then in his twenty-fourth year, Gabriel was a natural leader, a highly skilled blacksmith who could both "read and write." At six feet odd, Gabriel towered over most men, and he was not afraid to use his strength; in the fall of 1799, he had been convicted of "biting off a considerable part of the left ear" of a white neighbor. As a potential revolutionary, Gabriel had much to lose, for he had recently married. But his emerging plan was based upon careful calculation, and there is absolutely no truth to the popular myth that the short-haired slave was an irrational, messianic figure who wore his locks long in imitation of Samson. As far as the extant evidence indicates, freedom was his only religion.

(Gabriel's Conspiracy, 192)

The White man Gabriel attacked was one Absalom Johnson who caught him, his brother Solomon, and another slave named Jupiter trying to steal one of his hogs. Gabriel defended the other two men and, in the ensuing struggle, bit off Johnson's ear. For assaulting a White man, Gabriel could have been hanged, but because he was an asset of Thomas Prosser, he was given a lesser sentence of a month in jail and a branded thumb, but he did not even serve that time as Prosser paid for his release.

Slaves Waiting for Sale by Eyre Crowe

Eyre Crowe (Public Domain)

It is unclear how or when Gabriel learned to read and write, but it is possible that his father, also a blacksmith, was literate and had taught his sons. Gabriel's family were all enslaved at Prosser's Brookfield plantation in Henrico County, Virginia, and, when there, Gabriel worked with his brothers Solomon and Martin, but, often, he was away from Brookfield on what today would be known as "freelance work" smithing for other plantations and businesses. Although most of what he earned had to be turned over to Thomas Prosser, he was allowed to keep some for himself, part of which likely went to funding the revolt.

Continue reading...

[todaysdocument]

Statement of Afro-American Patrolmen's League

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United StatesSeries: Civil Case FilesFile Unit: Renault Robinson and the Afro American Patrolmen's League v. James B. Conlisk, et al.

Confidential

[illegible] -24715

For Immediate Release

September 10, 1969

The Afro-American Patrolmen's League has sought a meeting with the Superintendent of Chicago's Ploice Department, James Conlisk, regarding the explosive situation in the Black Community that has reached a critical point. This explosive situation has been developed by the current demands of Blacks to confront a construction industry that has systematically discriminated against hiring of Blacks. The demands are not simply for jobs but for the right to control the hitherto sinister pattern of hiring in the construction trades. If Blacks cannot participate in the construction of their own communities, who shall?

Recent events in Chicago hace amplified the prophecy of the Kerner Report: "We are rapidly drifting into two societies, one Black and one White". The arrest of Rev. Jesse Jackson has, of course, raised grave concern in the Black Community. We, as Black policemen, are attempting to humanize and bridge the gap between the two drifting societies. We want to build a new world with a foundation based on Social Justice as stated in our Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among whom are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

For a Policeman to state, "We are only doing our job" is to quite Adolph Eichmann when he defended the extermination of 10 million people. At this critical point in history we Black Policemen are standing up to be counted. People who are denied the right to build their own destinies have few options. In order to survive they must either struggle or surrender.

The Black Community will struggle for the right to construct buildings in Chicago. In struggle the potential for violence escalates. The need for a fair, just and impartial Police Department becomes paramount. We members of the Afro-American Patrolmen's League will continue to work towards that goal. We will no longer allow ourselves to be used as the oppressors of this Black Community in which we live. We will become its protectors.

In our Police Department there are few Black men who are in command positions. The racism of the Construction industry must not be perpetuated by the racism of the Police Department. To be legitimate the Police Department must represent all the people--Blace as well as White. As Rev. Jesse Jackson lies in a sick bed at the House of Correction and as the tension of this city increases, we Black Policemen join with all people of good will to make Dr. Marin Luther King's statement a reality: "Free at last, Free at least, Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

[alwaysbewoke]

This year December is the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This landmark document is suppose to entitle everyone inalienable rights as a human being - regardless of race, color, religion, sex, language, political or another opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The promise of dignity and equality in rights, has been under a sustained assault As the world faces challenges new and ongoing from exploding inequalities, racism, pandemics, conflicts, bankrupt global financial system, and climate change - the values, and rights in the UDHR are suppose to provide guideposts for our collective actions that do not leave anyone behind… We need to take action here in the US, by using our voices, and actions to support EVERYONE ‘s equal rights, not just some! Like Nelson Mandela said “To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity”

[dcdreamblog]

So Uncle Sam you're powered by belief in America right? Considering current events I'm not sure you're getting much belief huh.

(As this is the first question, gonna lay down some background. I want this to be as semi professional as I can make it) I met Sam on my lunch break where he normally hangs out, bringing my phone, my notepad and hopefully some questions from you all (I hadn't checked). Sam insisted it would be better if we did this someplace private. Bringing me down into the lower levels, past the labs where I sort artifacts into a disused conference area. He clicks the light switch in a specific rhythm which he tells me will disable the listening devices and cameras (we don't know what, if anything, the Perisphere's security is still feeding data to but putting a pin in that paranoia) He sits across from me at the table. I pour him a cup off coffee, I don't touch the stuff but he thanks me and I pull up my phone to the first question. Uncle Sam(US): "Should have known that it would be something contemporary..." *He crosses his arms and folds his legs, his lips tighten back and forth.* Me: "We can skip this one if you don't want t-" US: "No, no, it's a fair question. Being the way I am it's only right folks have got questions." *He tugs at his beard and sighs* "My friend. The untidy balancing act of my life is that both sides of the aisle think I'm rootin for the other guy." Me:"You mean the left thinks you're right. And the right thinks you're left?" US: "That's the modern way to say it, sure enough. To the progressives I'm a conservative icon. An image of the American empire, the army and congress and Tammany hall. To the conservatives I'm a naive softy, an idea for pinkos and reds and god knows what else. I don't know how to explain myself other than to repeat it for the 100th time." Me: "This is on the record, I'm certainly not going to stop you." US: *He sighs* "There's a lot more belief going around than you think. The fire at the base of my belly-" *He jabs himself in the sternum with his thumb* "Is the commandment "all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." *He tips up his hat with his thumb, scratching the edge of his hairline* "Now I know the verbiage there is downright old fashioned. I can't apologize for it anymore than I can change it, but the heart of the matter is where it is. If you're out there, fighting to improve and hone and reforge the American experiment. You're fightin' with my hand on your shoulder." Me: "That sounds fairly progressive to my ear, but that might just be me." US: "Oh hell, the whole idea was radical back when we were throwing tea in the harbor. When John Brown stood on a gallows and showed half the country its ugly side. When a whole sprawl of folks stood on the national mall and said "I Have a Dream". It's just..." *He bites his lip* Me: "Some progressives are beyond that point now." US: *He sits up, nodding* "Same as it ever was. Using the right cause as an excuse to burn the whole thing down and spill a lot of blood along the way. That I won't never abide. Not in my nature. I saw revolutions to that effect. Saw where they lead. From a vantage not a lot of other folks get to have. Scares the sam hill out of me." *He pauses, waving the thought off* US: "Ah but those kinda folks'd never listen to me anyhow. Short answer turned long and then short again, I'm eatin' plenty, every time people keep that faith. On a march, in a parade, just help someone at risk with an open hand. Just...maybe believe there's some life left in this old Red, White and Blue? For me, folks?"

[candlemouse]

Bah Humbug!

Vanessa and Warren had been sent to rural Poland on a quick mission. But, when a freak snow storm buries their hotel (which, coincidentally, had only one bed available), they’re trapped over the Christmas holiday. With so much downtime, the two end up becoming a lot more than just mission partners.

“You're taking the floor.”

“It's freezing in here,” Warren said as he fell onto the other side of the bed. “Absolutely not.”

Vanessa sighed. “If only my mission partner was a gentleman.”

“I believe in equality, and a person’s inalienable right to blankets, pillows, and a mattress.”

***

Ever since running away from her very Italian, (and consequently very Catholic) home as a teenager, Vanessa Santoro had neglected to celebrate Christmas. It simply had not been on her mind. From Society missions to her double agent status with the Knights of the Dawn, she stayed booked and busy. And, even if she had time and remembered the holidays, who would she celebrate with? Just herself in her home alone?

That would make the holidays even more depressing than usual.

For all these reasons, she barely realized it was December 22nd until she looked up from her uncomfortable airport seat to spot Warren towing his luggage complete with felt antlers and the ugliest Christmas sweater she had ever seen.

“Oh my god.” Vanessa took off her sunglasses and looked him up and down. “Santa has lost one of his elves.”

Warren sat down in the seat across from her. “Now, why aren’t you dressed up?”

“I���m not quite sure that was a requirement in the mission file.”

“You’re a scrooge.” He flicked a hidden switch on his sleeve, and the lights on his sweater turned on. Acclaimed pop hit Santa Baby began to play, presumably from some speaker on the accursed sweater.

Vanessa shot to her feet immediately. “I cannot be seen with you.”

Warren accompanied her on her brisk walk. “Why not?”

She sent him a look that hopefully conveyed the irrationality of such a statement. “There should be a car waiting at Terminal C to take us to the hotel. Let's go so you can change out of this as soon as possible.”

Warren laughed and slung an arm over her shoulder. Heat burned where their skin met.

If Vanessa knew anything, it was that Warren Burgess was not a name she would be forgetting any time soon. This was their fifth mission together ever since she had joined the Knights as an undercover agent six months ago.

They were slowly becoming permanent mission partners as their missions ended up significantly more successful than any other combination of Knights.

Together, Vanessa and Warren were even faster, more efficient, and smarter than they were on their own. And that was saying something considering how highly rated the agents were as individuals.

Simply, they were a dream team.

As Vanessa plucked his blinking, musical arm off her shoulder, she tried to ignore the voice that said there was something more than just efficiency going on.

Read the rest here!

[communist-manifesto-daily]

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Part 15

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

I - The Development of Utopian Socialism

Modern Socialism is, in its essence, the direct product of the recognition, on the one hand, of the class antagonisms existing in the society of today between proprietors and non-proprietors, between capitalists and wage-workers; on the other hand, of the anarchy existing in production. But, in its theoretical form, modern Socialism originally appears ostensibly as a more logical extension of the principles laid down by the great French philosophers of the 18th century. Like every new theory, modern Socialism had, at first, to connect itself with the intellectual stock-in-trade ready to its hand, however deeply its roots lay in material economic facts.

The great men, who in France prepared men’s minds for the coming revolution, were themselves extreme revolutionists. They recognized no external authority of any kind whatever. Religion, natural science, society, political institutions – everything was subjected to the most unsparing criticism: everything must justify its existence before the judgment-seat of reason or give up existence. Reason became the sole measure of everything. It was the time when, as Hegel says, the world stood upon its head [1]; first in the sense that the human head, and the principles arrived at by its thought, claimed to be the basis of all human action and association; but by and by, also, in the wider sense that the reality which was in contradiction to these principles had, in fact, to be turned upside down. Every form of society and government then existing, every old traditional notion, was flung into the lumber-room as irrational; the world had hitherto allowed itself to be led solely by prejudices; everything in the past deserved only pity and contempt. Now, for the first time, appeared the light of day, the kingdom of reason; henceforth superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, were to be superseded by eternal truth, eternal Right, equality based on Nature and the inalienable rights of man.

We know today that this kingdom of reason was nothing more than the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie; that this eternal Right found its realization in bourgeois justice; that this equality reduced itself to bourgeois equality before the law; that bourgeois property was proclaimed as one of the essential rights of man; and that the government of reason, the Contrat Social of Rousseau, came into being, and only could come into being, as a democratic bourgeois republic. The great thinkers of the 18th century could, no more than their predecessors, go beyond the limits imposed upon them by their epoch.

[1] This is the passage on the French Revolution:

“Thought, the concept of law, all at once made itself felt, and against this the old scaffolding of wrong could make no stand. In this conception of law, therefore, a constitution has now been established, and henceforth everything must be based upon this. Since the Sun had been in the firmament, and the planets circled around him, the sight had never been seen of man standing upon his head – i.e., on the Idea – and building reality after this image. Anaxagoras first said that the Nous, Reason, rules the world; but now, for the first time, had men come to recognize that the Idea must rule the mental reality. And this was a magnificent sunrise. All thinking Beings have participated in celebrating this holy day. A sublime emotion swayed men at that time, an enthusiasm of reason pervaded the world, as if now had come the reconciliation of the Divine Principle with the world.”

[Hegel: “The Philosophy of history”, 1840, p.535]

Is it not high time to set the anti-Socialist law in action against such teachings, subversive and to the common danger, by the late Professor Hegel?

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

[haggishlyhagging]

"You have granted that woman may be hung," said Wendell Phillips to his fellowmen, and "therefore you must grant that woman may vote." It was as simple as that. Either women were the peers and equals of men, and in that case should enjoy all civil and political rights equally with them, or women were (as men repeatedly maintained) an inferior caste; and in that case, any woman tried by a jury of men was automatically deprived of the right to trial by a jury of her peers. Feminists argued that men simply could not have it both ways.

For the men the choice was no choice at all, for to concede either point was to lose ground and that would never do. The inconsistency of their position was rather embarrassing, but certainly not unbearably so considering what there was to lose to those implacable women so relentlessly consistent in their demands. The New York State Woman's Rights Committee laid out the agenda at the Tenth National Woman's Rights Convention in 1860: "We now demand the ballot, trial by jury of our peers, and an equal right to the joint earnings of the marriage copartnership. And, until the Constitution be so changed as to give us a voice in the government, we demand that man shall make all his laws on property, marriage, and divorce, to bear equally on man and woman." "A citizen can not be said to have a right to life," the feminists argued, "who may be deprived of it for the violation of laws to which she has never consented—who is denied the right of trial by a jury of her peers—who has no voice in the election of judges who are to decide her fate."

As things were, women could not get simple justice. "It is not to be denied," Elizabeth Cady Stanton argued to the New York legislature in 1854, "that the interests of man and woman in the present undeveloped state of the race, and under the existing social arrangements, are and must be antagonistic. The nobleman can not make just laws for the peasant; the slaveholder for the slave; neither can man make and execute just laws for woman, because in each case, the one in power fails to apply the immutable principles of right to any grade but his own." In the courts of law in particular, how could a woman receive just treatment from "men who, by their own admis-sion, are so coarse that women could not meet them even at the polls without contamination?" Feminists demanded "in criminal cases that most sacred of all rights, trial by jury of our own peers. The establishment of trial by jury is of so early a date," Cady Stanton explained with that reasonableness so maddening to her opponents, "that its beginning is lost in antiquity; but the right of trial by a jury of one's own peers is a great progressive step of advanced civilization... Hence, all along the pages of history, we find the king, the noble, the peasant, the cardinal, the priest, the layman, each in turn protesting against the authority of the tribunal before which they were summoned to appear. Charles the First refused to recognize the competency of the tribunal which condemned him: For how, said he, can subjects judge a king? The stern descendants of our Pilgrim Fathers refused to answer for their crimes before an English Parliament. For how, they said, can a king judge rebels? And shall woman here consent to be tried by her liege lord, who has dubbed himself law-maker, judge, juror, and sheriff too?—whose power, though sanctioned by Church and State, has no foundation in justice and equity, and is a bold assumption of our inalienable rights."

-Ann Jones, Women Who Kill

[kick-a-long]

If you expect a vast ethnic cleansing in western countries that will make the racial ideology of the 1940s look kind, and you're a zionist, why don't you live in Israel already?

well first, I think that the group that will probably be targeted in whatever kind of expulsion or deportation are muslims. It's insane to me that the left doesn't see that. it's insane to me how short sighted they are when there are FAR more islamists posting videos in their own words about what they believe, ex-muslims speaking about shitty practices, muslim countries with fully horrific laws when viewed from western values, and a growing population of right wing voters who are already upset with politics generally and leftists specifically. normal, chill, awesome, muslim populations in Europe are going to pay the bill for the check that leftists are writing by aligning themselves (and thus moderate muslims) with islamist groups and countries. leftists are tethering the image of terrorists to muslims better than post 9/11 govs were able to. it's stretching a rubber band that will snap back.

second, I'm something like 7 generations American jew. I am a left leaning, history knowing, unapologetic, pragmatist interested in fixing what's broken not throwing the most long running democracy in history away over infighting, patriotic American. I love this hot mess of a place and while I don't think America is EXCEPTIONAL by it's nature, I think America has things running here as well or better than any other country on the map in terms of both stability and inalienable rights at the moment and historically. To me it's the only game in town even if it's a shitty game in the last 20 years.

literally the only thing that would make me leave is if the government stopped being democratic. Just because America is imperfect and fuck-y and racist sometimes doesn't mean it's not one of the best, most stable, places to live in the world for any type of minority. you can see it in the court system where antisemitism in colleges and work places has been prosecuted civilly and will continue to be. It is never going to be legal to fuck with jews for being jews or muslims for being muslims. that said, jews are very ingrained into America both culturally and ideologically while muslims are very separated from it. jews aren't the "other" muslims are. most jews aren't recent or even second gen citizens, while many many muslims, including rich well educated (which is primarily where our muslim community comes from) aren't. it's a grand tradition in america to fuck with recent immigrants, look how many hispanics support deporting immigrants.

While I worry for what happens to Jews after Muslims get targeted, I'm only leaving if the gov collapses and religion stops being protected.

Europe on the other hand is pretty fucking close to believing that muslims are taking over and will replace their courts with sharia law and like... idk, legalizing honor killings and outlawing free speech or some shit. most muslims in europe are refugee status, or "low value" immigrants, and they are a pretty huge minority there, compared to America where there are very few. Europe doesn't have a kind history to ethnic groups generally. they can't even handle jews, people who they share far more religious and physical similarities with and who stay out of controlling other people's shit as a rule. jews in fight about controlling our own shit.

third, I support Israel because it's doing the right thing and is the most equal state in the arab world to live, as a woman, arab, muslim, jew, druze, you name it.

It's not my backup plan.

I want Israel to be ok because Israel, by it's people, ideology, location and even in its flawed gov, IS EXCEPTIONAL. By pretty much any measure, Israel shouldn't exist on paper. Israelis have done what should be impossible by their own bridge building, smarts and hard work. I'm lucky to be jewish so I was in a good position to actually listen and learn about the history and current state of the region rather than join the pro terrorists marching through college campuses and times square.

sorry for the rant.

I believe shit globally (america +europe +everyone else vs. russia +china +iran +north korea) is about to pop off, especially with trump in office, and I don't see Europe or America allying with iran, despite their anti-israel posturing. great if it doesn't, but in the meantime it's important to spread the word that islamists are dog shit and muslims are not.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan E Greve and Helen Sullivan at The Guardian:

Joe Biden addressed the nation Wednesday to explain his historic decision to withdraw from the presidential race, delivering a reflective and hopeful message about the need to begin a new chapter in America’s story.

“I believe my record as president, my leadership in the world, my vision for America’s future all merited a second term, but nothing – nothing – can come in the way of saving our democracy. That includes personal ambition,” Biden said in the Oval Office. “So I’ve decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation. It’s the best way to unite our nation. You know, there is a time and a place for long years of experience in public life. There’s also a time and a place for new voices, fresh voices – yes, younger voices. And that time and place is now.” The speech came three days after Biden stunned the country with the announcement he would abandon his presidential campaign less than four months before election day. As he contemplated the legacy of his five decades in public life, Biden pledged to keep working to better Americans’ lives as he concludes his first – and now only – term as president. Some Republican lawmakers have suggested Biden should resign rather than finish out his term, but the president firmly rejected those calls on Wednesday.

“Over the next six months, I’ll be focused on doing my job as president,” he said. “That means I’ll continue to lower costs for hard-working families [and] grow our economy. I’ll keep defending our personal freedoms and our civil rights – from the right to vote to the right to choose.” Biden specifically vowed to “keep working to end the war in Gaza, bring home all the hostages and bring peace and security to the Middle East”. Hours before Biden’s speech, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, delivered a divisive address to a rare joint session of Congress in which he called for “total victory” in the war. Biden cited his own leadership on foreign policy, including his staunch support for Ukraine amid its war against Russia, as one of his proudest accomplishments. He reminded voters about the legislation he has signed to tackle the climate crisis, reduce gun violence and expand healthcare access. Harkening back to the day of his inauguration in 2021, weeks after the January 6 attack on the Capitol and less than a year into the start of the coronavirus pandemic, Biden marveled at how far the country had come in such a short time.

“We were in the grip of the worst pandemic in the century, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the worst attack on our democracy since the civil war,” Biden said. “We came together as Americans. We got through it. We emerged stronger, more prosperous and more secure.” After withdrawing from the race on Sunday, Biden endorsed his vice-president Kamala Harris, who has already consolidated the support of enough delegates to capture the Democratic nomination next month. In his speech, Biden reiterated his praise of Harris and underscored the immense choice facing voters this November. “I’d like to thank our great vice-president, Kamala Harris,” Biden said. “She’s experienced, she’s tough, she’s capable. She’s been an incredible partner to me and a leader for our country. Now the choice is up to you, the American people.”

[...] “America is an idea, an idea stronger than any army, bigger than any ocean, more powerful than any dictator or tyrant. It’s the most powerful idea in the history of the world,” Biden said. “That idea is that we hold these truths to be self-evident. We’re all created equal, endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. We’ve never fully lived up to it, to this sacred idea, but we’ve never walked away from it either, and I do not believe the American people will walk away from it now.” It was a message that echoed Biden’s campaign slogan in 2020, which framed the election against Trump as a “battle for the soul of the nation”. That battle remains ongoing, Biden said, and it will now be up to the American people to decide how it will end. “The great thing about America is here, kings and dictators do not rule. The people do,” Biden said. “History is in your hands. The power is in your hands. The idea of America lies in your hands. You just have to keep faith – keep the faith – and remember who we are.”

President Joe Biden gave an excellent Oval Office address on the topic of ending his re-election bid and handing the baton to Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden has announced that he is staying to complete his term.

Let’s get some herstory made and elect a Momala to the White House! #Harris47 #Harris2024

See Also:

HuffPost: Joe Biden Urges Nation To Defend Democracy As He Passes Torch: ‘History Is In Your Hands’

Daily Kos: Watch: Biden addresses nation for first time since dropping reelection bid

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[Eleanor Roosevelt with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, courtesy of the FDR Presidential Library & Museum, via Wikipedia Commons]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

December 10, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Dec 10, 2024

Today is Human Rights Day, celebrated internationally in honor of the day seventy-six years ago, December 10, 1948, when the United Nations General Assembly announced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

In 1948 the world was still reeling from the death and destruction of World War II, including the horrors of the Holocaust. The Soviet Union was blockading Berlin, Italy and France were convulsed with communist-backed labor agitation, Greece was in the middle of a civil war, Arabs opposed the new state of Israel, communists and nationalists battled in China, and segregationists in the U.S. were forming their own political party to stop the government from protecting civil rights for Black Americans. In the midst of these dangerous trends, the member countries of the United Nations came together to adopt a landmark document: a common standard of fundamental rights for all human beings.

The United Nations itself was only three years old. Representatives of the 47 countries that made up the Allies in World War II, along with the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and newly liberated Denmark and Argentina, had formed the United Nations as a key part of an international order based on rules on which nations agreed, rather than the idea that might makes right, which had twice in just over twenty years brought wars that involved the globe.

Part of the mission of the U.N. was “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” In early 1946 the United Nations Economic and Social Council organized a nine-person commission on human rights to construct the mission of a permanent Human Rights Commission. Unlike other U.N. commissions, though, the selection of its members would be based not on their national affiliations but on their personal merit.

President Harry S. Truman had appointed Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of former president Franklin Delano Roosevelt and much beloved defender of human rights in the United States, as a delegate to the United Nations. In turn, U.N. Secretary-General Trygve Lie from Norway put her on the commission to develop a plan for the formal human rights commission. That first commission asked Roosevelt to take the chair.

“[T]he free peoples” and “all of the people liberated from slavery, put in you their confidence and their hope, so that everywhere the authority of these rights, respect of which is the essential condition of the dignity of the person, be respected,” a U.N. official told the commission at its first meeting on April 29, 1946.

The U.N. official noted that the commission must figure out how to define the violation of human rights not only internationally but also within a nation, and must suggest how to protect “the rights of man all over the world.” If a procedure for identifying and addressing violations “had existed a few years ago,” he said, “the human community would have been able to stop those who started the war at the moment when they were still weak and the world catastrophe would have been avoided.”

Drafted over the next two years, the final document began with a preamble explaining that a UDHR was necessary because “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” and because “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.” Because “the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,” the preamble said, “human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”

The thirty articles that followed established that “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” and regardless “of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs.”

Those rights included freedom from slavery, torture, degrading punishment, arbitrary arrest, exile, and “arbitrary interference with…privacy, family, home or correspondence, [and] attacks upon…honour and reputation.”

They included the right to equality before the law and to a fair trial, the right to travel both within a country and outside of it, the right to marry and to establish a family, and the right to own property.

They included the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” “freedom of opinion and expression,” peaceful assembly, the right to participate in government either “directly or through freely chosen representatives,” the right of equal access to public service. After all, the UDHR noted, the authority of government rests on the will of the people, “expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage.”

They included the right to choose how and where to work, the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to unionize, and the right to fair pay that ensures “an existence worthy of human dignity.”

They included “the right to a standard of living adequate for…health and well-being…, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond [one’s] control.”

They included the right to free education that develops students fully and strengthens “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Education “shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.”

They included the right to participate in art and science.

They included the right to live in the sort of society in which the rights and freedoms outlined in the UDHR could be realized. And, the document concluded, “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

Although eight countries abstained from the UDHR—South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and six countries from the Soviet bloc—no country voted against it, making the vote unanimous. The declaration was not a treaty and was not legally binding; it was a declaration of principles.

Since then, though, the UDHR has become the foundation of international human rights law. More than eighty international treaties and declarations, along with regional human rights conventions, domestic human rights bills, and constitutional provisions, make up a legally binding system to protect human rights. All of the members of the United Nations have ratified at least one of the major international human rights treaties, and four out of five have ratified four or more.

Indeed, today is the fortieth anniversary of the U.N.’s adoption of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, more commonly known as the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), which follows the structure of the UDHR.

The UDHR remains aspirational, but it is a vital part of the rules-based order that restrains leaders from human rights abuses, giving victims a language and a set of principles to condemn mistreatment. Before 1948 that language and those principles were unimaginable.

In a proclamation today, the White House recommitted to “upholding the equal and inalienable rights of all people.” It noted that in the U.S., the Biden administration established “the White House Gender Policy Council to advance the rights and opportunities of women and girls across domestic and foreign policy [and] rejoined the United Nations Human Rights Council to highlight and address pressing human rights concerns.” It has “worked to protect the rights of LGBTQI+ people” and to expand “accessibility for people with disabilities.” Crucially, the administration has also worked to stop the misuse of commercial spyware, which has enabled human rights abuses around the world as authoritarian governments surveil their populations, and to fight back against transnational repression targeting human rights defenders.

At the State Department, Under Secretary of State Uzra Zeya, Assistant Secretary of State Dafna Rand, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken honored eight individuals with the Human Rights Defender Award. The recipients came from Kuwait, Bolivia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Burma, Eswatini, Ghana, Colombia, and Azerbaijan and defend migrant workers, LGBTQ+ individuals, women, democracy.

Their stories underlined both that the fight for human rights is universal and that it requires courage. One recipient’s award was delivered in absentia because he is imprisoned. Another award was posthumous—the recipient was murdered last year.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[softrozene]

"Stay Strong. Stay with Me."

Anonymous requested: never seen anyone tackle this one before: could you do HCs or a scenario (your pick) of Dutch finding himself getting along and becoming fascinated by an f!reader Pinkerton agent who has gone rogue, believing in his cause (before everything goes to shit) and using her power to keep the law off their back? this is a weird one so thank you if you do try it out!! SFW or NSFW is fine if you see any kind of tension happening down the line

m.m

Sorry for the long wait Hon! I hope you enjoy this because I certainly enjoyed writing these as headcanons but I did add a little slight nsfw towards the end 😉 The idea of a forbidden enemies to lovers with Dutch is just so *chef’s kiss*. Enjoy!

Dutch Van Der Linde x Female Reader

Warnings: Fluff, reader is technically a double agent by accident, only mentions everything good before Dutch goes… y’know :’), slight nsfw towards the end

Words: ~800

-

At first, you absolutely hate him – that man being Dutch Van Der Linde

He was everything you detested only because you didn’t know the man personally

You only heard the rumors, how he and his gang of cowboys and gals steal and murder their way out of trouble

You heard how they tried to defend it, saying they do it “honestly” compared to other gangs, but you haven’t seen it. All you have seen is the death they left in their wake. The results of their actions and you hated them

That was at Blackwater

You have been keeping an eye and an ear out for them. You want to personally deal with them

This determination you have is how you manage to meet Dutch by himself. You wanted to hear out his reasoning before you report his ass. You wanted to see if this evil man you saw only through results was truly evil

And you met him and to your surprise, he wasn’t evil at all

He was just a man trying to keep his values alive in this growing world

Finding out that he valued greatly things such as liberty, equality, cultural tolerance was eye opening to you

And what even more was surprising was he didn’t question your status as a female Pinkerton agent at all

When you asked him to explain himself further, he did so with passion. You believe it was that passion that pushed you to truly like that man as you realized you shared his same values

The main values he taught you to appreciate is that human rights are universal and inalienable. That the true way of life is to live in freedom on natural rights instead of being dependent on the government

It made sense to you

And it also made you feel bad because of your line of work

You went after bad criminals your agency was sent to go after

You went after really bad people that put people in danger

And while yes, Dutch has proved to be dangerous, he has not proved to kill out of malicious intent. He is just following his values and you came to respect that

Because of your new shared values with the man, you got along well and he found it fascinating that you wanted to know more about his morals and such. He was captivated that someone in your stance would be so intrigued by him

It eventually makes him fall hard (sorry Molly :()

He would ask you to leave your job if he could, but he hasn’t and you used this to your advantage to help him

You would give him updates on what the Pinkertons were up to, where they were going, and in turn you would lie to the Pinkertons, give them enough breadcrumbs to keep them believing you were on their side, but not enough to give away Dutch

It is a very weird relationship, but one Dutch comes to appreciate the most

He does consider you family and even tells the others to trust you

He will occasionally try to get you to join his cause, be in his gang, but won’t push you to do so if you don’t want to be an outlaw like them

In moments of any doubts you have, he does tell you to “Stay Strong. Stay with me.”

Slight Nsfw headcanons:

The moment Dutch lays eyes on you, he is smitten

He finds it adorable that a little Pinkerton agent like you wants to ask him questions so he entertains it

But he is does find it intriguing that a woman is in such a position so he automatically thinks you are not to be messed with

It isn’t until halfway through does he realize you are taking him very seriously, that you are loving this talk about values and how society should be

It makes him think you are not just a pretty face, but you have a beautiful brain too, and that my dear, is what makes him instantly horny for you

It’s only after the third meeting he has with you does he suggests getting intimate with you

He says that it would be a one-time thing since you are technically enemies but after that one night, he just couldn’t get enough of you

It turns into multiple times and he even daydreams about the next time he will see you, the next time he can hold you and touch you

He turns low-key obsessed and loves the idea of a cat-and-mouse faux chase with you

He offers to turn it into that once or twice to make your sex life more exciting

But most often than not he prefers sweet and gentle sex with you since you seem to be his perfect half and his perfect double agent

Yes, Dutch does love receiving pleasure, but you know that once that man gives you pleasure, you aren’t getting up until his thirst for you is satisfied

[whencyclopedia]

Natural Rights & the Enlightenment

The idea of natural rights is the concept used in philosophy and legal studies that a person has certain rights from birth and which, because they were not awarded by a particular state or legal authority, cannot be removed, that is, they are inalienable. Such rights may include the right to life, liberty, equality, property, justice, and happiness.

Continue reading...