Love, Western Nihilism and Revolutionary Optimism | Global … – Center for Research on Globalization

How dreadfully depressing life has become in almost all of the Western cities! How awful and sad.

It is not that these cities are not rich; they are. Of course things are deteriorating there, the infrastructure is crumbling and there are signs of social inequality, even misery, at every corner. But if compared to almost all other parts of the world, the wealth of the Western cities still appears to be shocking, almost grotesque.

The affluence does not guarantee contentment, happiness or optimism. Spend an entire day strolling through London or Paris, and pay close attention to people. You will repeatedly stumble over passive aggressive behavior, over frustration and desperate downcast glances, over omnipresent sadness.

In all those once great [imperialist] cities, what is missing is life. Euphoria, warmth, poetry and yes love are all in extremely short supply there.

Wherever you walk, all around, the buildings are monumental, and boutiques are overflowing with elegant merchandise. At night, bright lights shine brilliantly. Yet the faces of people are gray. Even when forming couples, even when in groups, human beings appear to be thoroughly atomized, like the sculptures of Giacometti.

Talk to people, and youll most likely encounter confusion, depression, and uncertainty. Refined sarcasm, and sometimes abogus urban politeness are like thin bandages that are trying to conceal the most horrifying anxieties and thoroughly unbearable loneliness of those lost human souls.

Purposelessness is intertwined with passivity. In the West, it is increasingly hard to find someone that is truly committed: politically, intellectually or even emotionally. Big feelings are now seen as frightening; both men and women reject them. Grand gestures are increasingly looked down upon, or even ridiculed. Dreams are becoming tiny, shy and always down to earth, and even those are lately extremely well concealed. Even to daydream is seen as something irrational and outdated.

***

To a stranger who comes from afar, it appears to be a sad, unnatural, brutally restrained and to a great extent, a pitiful world.

Tens of millions of adult men and women, some well educated, do not know what to do with their lives. They take courses or go back to school in order to fill the void, and to discover what they want to do with their lives. It is all self-serving, as there appear to be no greater aspirations. Most of the efforts begin and end with each particular individual.

Nobody sacrifices himself or herself for others, for society, for humanity, for the cause, or even for the other half, anymore. In fact, even the concept of the other half is disappearing. Relationships are increasingly distant, each person searching for his or her space, demanding independence even in togetherness. There are no two halves; instead there are two fully independent individuals, co-existing in a relative proximity, sometimes physically touching, sometimes not, but mostly on their own.

In the Western capitals, the egocentricity, even total obsession with ones personal needs, is brought to a surreal extreme.

Psychologically, it can only be described as a twisted and pathological world.

Surrounded by this bizarre pseudo reality, many otherwise healthy individuals eventually feel, or even become, mentally ill. Then, paradoxically, they embark on seekingprofessional help, so they can re-join the ranks of the normal, readthoroughly subdued citizens. In most cases, instead of continuously rebelling, instead of waging personal wars against the state of things, the individuals who are still at least to some extent different, get so frightened by being in the minority that they give up, surrender voluntarily, and identify themselves as abnormal.

Short sparks of freedom experienced by those who are still capable of at least some imagination, of dreaming about a true and natural world, get rapidly extinguished.

Then, in a short instant, everything gets irreversibly lost. It may appear as some horror film, but it is not, it is the true reality of life in the West.

I cannot function in such an environment for more than a few days. If forced, I could last in London or Paris for two weeks at most, but only while operating on some emergency mode,unable to write, to create and to function normally. I cannot imagine being in love in a place like that. I cannot imagine writing a revolutionary essay there. I cannot imagine laughing, loudly, happily, freely.

While briefly working in London, Paris or New York, the coldness, purposelessness, and chronic lack of passion and of all basic human emotions, is having a tremendously exhausting effect on me, derailing my creativity and drowning me in useless, pathetic existentialist dilemmas.

After one week there, Im simply beginning to get influenced by that terrible environment: Im starting to think about myself excessively, listening to my feelings, instead of considering the feelings of the others. My duties towards humanity get neglected. I put on hold everything that I otherwise consider essential. My revolutionary edge loses its sharpness. My optimism begins to evaporate. My determination to struggle for a better world begins to weaken.

This is when I know: it is time to run, to run away. Fast, very fast! It is time to pull myself from the stale emotional swamp, to slam the door behind the intellectual bordello, and to escape from the terrifying meaninglessness that is dotted with injured, even wasted lives.

I cannot fight for those people from within, only from outside. Our way of thinking and feeling do not match. When they get out and visit my universe, they bring with them resilient prejudices: they do not register what they see and hear, they stick to what they were indoctrinated with, for years and decades.

For me personally there are not many significant things that I can do in Western cities. Periodically, I come to sign one or two book contracts, to open my films, or to speak briefly at some university, but I dont see any point of doing much more. In the West, it is hard to find any meaningful struggle. Most struggles there are not internationalist; instead they are selfish, West-oriented in nature. Almost no true courage, no ability to love, no passion, and no rebellion remain. On closer examination, there is actually no life there; no life as we human beings used to perceive it, and as we still understand it in many other parts of the world.

***

Nihilism rules. Was this mental state, this collective illness something that has been inflicted on purpose by the regime? I dont know. I cannot yet answer this question. But it is essential to ask, and to try to understand.

Whatever it is, it is extremely effective negatively effective but effective nevertheless.

Carl Gustav Jung, a renowned Swiss psychologist and psychiatrist, diagnosed Western culture as pathological, right after WWII. But instead of trying to comprehend its own abysmal condition, instead of trying to get better, even well, Western culture is actually made to expand, to rapidly spread to many other parts of the world, dangerously contaminating healthy societies and nations.

It has to be stopped. I say it because I do love this life, the life, which still exists outside the Western realm; Im intoxicated with it, obsessed with it. I live it to the fullest, with great delight, enjoying every moment of it.

I know the world, from the Southern Cone of South America, to Oceania, the Middle East, to the most god-forsaken corners of Africa and Asia. It is a truly tremendous world, full of beauty and diversity, and hope.

The more I see and know, the more I realize that I absolutely cannot exist without a struggle, without a good fight, without great passions and love, and without purpose; basically without all that the West is trying to reduce to nothing, to make irrelevant, obsolete and ridiculous.

My entire being is rebelling against the awful nihilism and dark pessimism that is being injected almost everywhere by Western culture. Im violently allergic to it. I refuse to accept it. I refuse to succumb to it.

I see people, good people, talented people, wonderful people, getting contaminated, having their lives ruined. I see them abandoning great battles, abandoning their great loves. I see them choosing selfishness and their space and personal feelings over deep affection and inseparability, opting for meaningless careers over great adventures of epic battles for humanity and better world.

Lives are being ruined one by one, and by millions, every moment and every day. Lives that could have been full of beauty, full of joy, of love, full of adventure, of creativity and uniqueness, of meaning and purpose, but instead are reduced to emptiness, to nothingness, in brief: to thorough meaninglessness. People living such lives are performing tasks and jobs by inertia, respecting without questioning all behavior patterns ordered by the regime, and obeying countless grotesque laws and regulations.

They cannot walk on their own feet, anymore. They have been made fully submissive. It is over for them.

That is because the courage of the people in the West has been broken. It is because they have been reduced to a crowd of obedient subjects, submissive to the destructive and morally defunct Empire.

They have lost the ability to think for themselves. They have lost courage to feel.

As a result, because the West has such an enormous influence on the rest of the world, the entire humanity is in grave danger, is suffering, and is losing its natural bearing.

***

In such a society, a person overflowing with passion, a person fully committed and true to his or her cause can never be taken seriously. It is because in a society like this, only deep nihilism and cynicism are accepted and respected.

In such a society, a revolution or a rebellion could hardly go beyond the pub or a living room couch.

A person, who is still capable of loving in such an emotionally constipating and twisted environment, is usually seen as a buffoon, even as a suspicious and sinister element. It is common for him or for her to be ridiculed and rejected.

Obedient and cowardly masses hate those who are different. They distrust people who stand tall and who are still capable of fighting, people who know perfectly well what their goals are, people who do and not just talk, and those who find it easy to throw their entire life, without the slightest hesitation, at the feet of a beloved person or an honorable cause.

Such individuals terrify and irritate those suave, submissive and shallow crowds in Western capitals.As a punishment, they get deserted and divorced, ostracized, socially exiled and demonized. Some end up getting attacked, even thoroughly destroyed.

The result is: there is no culture,anywhere on Earth,so banal and so obedient as that which is now regulating the West. Lately, nothing of revolutionary intellectual significance is flowing from Europe and North America, as there are hardly any detectable unorthodox ways of thinking or perceptions of the world there.

The dialogues and debates are flowing only through fully anticipated and well-regulated channels, and needless to say they fluctuate only marginally and through the fully pre-approved frequencies.

***

What is on the other side of the barricade?

I dont want to glorify our revolutionary countries and movements.

I dont even want to write that we are the exact oppositeof that entire nightmare that has been created by the West. We are not. And we are far from being perfect.

But we are alive if not always well, we are standing, trying to advance this wonderful project called humanity, attempting to save our planet from Western imperialism, its nihilist gloom, as well as absolute environmental disaster.

We are considering many different ways forward. We have never rejected Socialism and Communism, and we are studying various moderate and controlled forms of capitalism. The advantages and disadvantages of the so-called mixed economy are being discussed and evaluated.

We fight, but because we are much less brutal, orthodox and dogmatic than the West, we often lose, as we recently (and hopefully only temporarily) lost in Brazil and Argentina. We also win, again and again. As this essay goes to print, we are celebrating in Ecuador and El Salvador.

Unlike in the West, in such places like China, Russia and Latin America, our debates aboutthe political and economic future are vibrant, even stormy. Our art is engaged, helping to search for the best humanist concepts. Our thinkers are alert, compassionate and innovative, and our songs and poems are great, full of passion and fire, overflowing with love and longing.

Our countries do not steal from anyone; they dont overthrow governments in the opposite parts of the world, they do not undertake massive military invasions. What we have is ours; it is what we have created, produced and sown with our own hands. It is not always much, but we are proud of it, because no one had to die for it, and no one had to be enslaved.

Our hearts are purer. They are not always absolutely pure, but purer than those in the West are. We do not abandon those whom we love, even if they fall, get injured, or cannot walk any longer. Our women do not abandon their men, especially those who are in the middle of fighting for a better world. Our men do not abandon their women, even when they are in deep pain or despair. We know whom and what we love, and we know whom and what we hate: in this we rarely get confused.

We are much simpler than those living in the West. In many ways, we are also much deeper.

We respect hard work, especially work that helps to improve the lives of millions, not just our own lives, or the lives of our families.

We try to keep our promises. We dont always succeed in keeping them, as we are only humans, but we are trying, and most of the times we are managing to.

Things are not always exactly like this, but often they are. And when things are like this, it means that there is at least some hope and optimism and often even great joy.

Optimism is essential for any progress. No revolution could succeed without tremendous enthusiasm, as no love could. No revolution and no love could be built on depression and defeatism.

Even in the middle of the ashes to which imperialism has reduced our world, a true revolutionary and a true poet canal ways at least find some hope. It will not be easy, not easy at all, but definitely not impossible. Nothing is ever lost in this life, for as long as our hearts are beating.

***

The state in which our world is right now is dreadful. It often feels that one more step in a wrong direction, another false turn, and everything will finally collapse, irreversibly. It is easy, extremely easy, to give up, to throw everything up into the air, and to land on a couch with a six-pack of beer, or to simply declare there is nothing that can be done, and then resume ones meaningless life routine.

Western nihilism has already done its devastating work: it has landed tens of millions of thinking beings on their proverbial couches of defeatism. It has spread pessimism and gloom, and a general belief that things can never improve, anymore. It has maneuvered people into refusing to accept labels, into rejecting progressive ideologies, and into a pathological distrust of any power. The all politicians are the same slogan could be translated clearly into:

We all know that our Western rulers are gangsters, but do not expect anything else from those in other parts of the world. All people are the same reads: The West has been plundering and murdering hundreds of millions, but dont expect anything better from Asians, Latin Americans or Africans.

This irrational, cynical negativism already domesticated in virtually all countries of the West, and has successfully been exported to many colonies, even to such places as Afghanistan, where people have been suffering incessantly from crimes committed by the West.

Its goal is evident: to prevent people from taking action and to convince them that any rebellion is futile. Such attitudes are brutally choking all hopes.

In the meantime, collateral damage is mounting. Metastases of the passivity and nihilistic cancers which are being spread by the Western regime are already attacking even that very human ability to love, to commit to a person or to a cause, and to stand by ones pledges and obligations.

In the West and in its colonies, courage has lost its entire luster. The Empire has managed to reverse the whole scale of human values, which was firmly and naturally in place on all the continents and in all cultures, for centuries and millennia. All of a sudden, submission and obedience have come to vogue.

It often feels that if the trend is not reversed soon, people will increasingly start live like mice: constantly scared, neurotic, unreliable, depressed, passive, unable to identify true greatness, and unwilling to join those who are still pulling our world and humanity forward.

Billions of lives will get wasted. Billions of lives are already being wasted.

Some of us write about invasions, coups and dictatorships imposed by the Empire. However, almost nothing is being written about this tremendous and silent genocide that is breaking the human spirit and optimism, throwing entire nations into a dark depression and gloom. But it is taking place, even as these lines are being penned. It is happening everywhere, even in such places as London, Paris and New York, or more precisely, especially there.

In those unfortunate places, fear of great emotions has already been deeply rooted. Originality, courage and determination are now evoking fear. Great love, great gestures and unorthodox dreams are all observed with panic and mistrust.

But no progress, no evolution is possible without entirely unconventional ways of thinking, without the revolutionary spirit, without great sacrifices and discipline, without commitment, and without that most powerful and most daring set of emotions, which is called love.

The demagogues and propagandists of the Empire want us to believe that something ended; they want us to accept defeat.

Why should we? There is no defeat anywhere on the horizon.

There are only two separate realities, two universes, into which our world had been shattered into: one of Western nihilism, another of revolutionary optimism.

I have already described the nihilism, but what do I imagine when I dream about that better, different world?

Do I envision red flags and people forming closed ranks, charging against some lavish palaces and stock exchanges? Do I hear loud revolutionary songs blasted from loudspeakers?

I actually do not. What comes to my mind is essentially very quiet and natural, human and warm.

There is a park near the old train station in the city of Granada, Nicaragua. I visited it some time ago. There, several old trees are throwing fantastic shadows on the ground, providing a desirable shade. Into a few big metal columns are engraved the most beautiful poems ever written in this country, while in between those columns stand simple but solid park benches. I sat on one of them. Not far from me, a couple of ageing lovers was holding hands, reading cheek to cheek from an open book. They were so close that they appeared to be forming a simple and totally self-sufficient universe. Above them were the shining verses written by Ernesto Cardenal, one of my favorite Latin American poets.

I also recall two Cuban doctors, sitting on a very different bench, thousands of miles away, chatting and laughing next to two goodhearted and corpulent nurses, after performing a complex surgery in Kiribati, an island nation lost in the middle of South Pacific.

I remember many things, but they are never monumental, only human. Because that is what revolution really is, I think: a couple of ageing peasants in a beautiful public park, both of them in love, holding hands, reading poetry to each other. Or two doctors travelling to the end of the world, just in order to save lives, far from the spotlight and fame.

And I always remember my dear friend, Eduardo Galeano, one of the greatest revolutionary writers of Latin America, telling me in Montevideo, about his eternal love for his wonderful lady calledReality.

Then I think: no, we cannot lose. We are not going to lose. The enemy is mighty and many people are weak and scared, but we will not allow the world to be converted into a mental asylum. Well fight for each and every person who has been affected, and drowned in gloom.

Well expose the abnormality and perversity of Western nihilism. Well fight it with our revolutionary enthusiasm and optimism, and we will use the greatest weapons, such as poetry and love.

***

Andre Vltchekis a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel Aurora and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: Exposing Lies Of The Empire and Fighting Against Western Imperialism. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through hiswebsite and his Twitter.

See more here:

Love, Western Nihilism and Revolutionary Optimism | Global ... - Center for Research on Globalization

We’re all political nihilists now – Washington Post

Senate Republicans took the "nuclear option," to break the filibuster on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch on April 6, and both parties pointed fingers at the other for the divisive rules change. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

The Senate just went nuclear. After Democrats successfully filibustered Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination Thursday morning, Republicans simply reduced the threshold for Supreme Court picks from 60 votes to a majority very likely changing the Senate forever.

Republicans cite Democrats' 2013 move to nuke the filibusterfor non-Supreme Court nominees to justify their actions, and Democrats cite the GOP's obstruction of Merrick Garland last year to justify their highly unusual filibuster. Both have extremely valid points.

But the truth is that it's all a rather predictable result. And the causes aren'tjust the things we often cite, like polarization, gerrymandering or fatefulmaneuvers by our leaders; it's also about our increasing political nihilism.

In announcing his clearly reluctant decision to support the filibuster this week, former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.)conceded that the Senate he had served in for four decades had simply changed. I cannot vote solely to protect an institution, he said. I fear that the Senate I would be defending no longer exists.

Sen. Leahy (D-Vt.) delivered a strong rebuke of the changing partisanship in the Senate on April 3. "I fear that the Senate I would be defending no longer exists," he said of the impending GOP decision to change filibuster rules over Judge Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination. "I will not, I cannot support advancing this nomination." (Reuters)

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), meanwhile,said anyone who thinks the nuclear option is a good thing is a stupid idiot two days before he voted to go nuclear.

Both of these senators and plenty of others projected profound reluctance about the steps they were embarking upon, but they still went through with it of their own volition. They hadn't changed, they insisted, but the other side had forced their hands. The Senate just wasn't what it once was.

More realistically, though, it's our politics that aren't what they once were. Fewer and fewer things are sacred, and political norms are being cast aside in the name of base politics with an alarming frequency. President Trump certainly cast a spotlight upon this trend and exploited it but it was already happening.

Democratsprobably wouldn't have filibustered Gorsuch if not for the immense pressure they received from their base. There were multiple times when a Democratic senator sounded as though he or she didn't want to filibuster Leahy and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), specifically and were forced to quicklyclarify that their stances were in line with the base.

So they launched what was basically an unprecedented filibuster. No, the filibuster wasn'tcompletely unprecedented as The Fix's own Amber Phillips reported,a mostly partisan filibuster blocked Abe Fortas's nomination to be chief justice a half-century ago butit was completely unusual in that Gorsuch didn't seem to have any disqualifying attributes, and it wasn't a lame-duck president's nominee. And in doing so, Democrats repeatedly and misleadinglyevangelized the 60-vote standard.

Going back to 2013, Democrats only invoked their nuclear option after Republicans spent the better part of the Obama presidency wielding the filibuster with unprecedented frequencyagainst his nominees. Republicans often argued that President Barack Obama's liberalism was unprecedented, so it must be met with such unprecedented obstructionism.

And last year, Republicans wouldn't even allow Obama's nomination of Garland a hearing, justifying this by citing a so-called Biden Rule that wasn't really that analogous. It was a nakedly partisan ploy, and it worked. Democrats tried hard to make it an issue in the 2016 election but quickly gave up.

The common link between all of these isthateach step was outwardly justifiable to the party that was taking it, and that justification was good enough for partisans even if it didn't hold water, strictly speaking. It was a gray area that politicians gladly exploited and that their bases, in fact, demanded they exploit. In none of these cases did breaking with political norms alienate anyone in the party's increasingly loyal bases, and in none of them did the gambit seem to have an appreciable effect on the political middle.

Against that backdrop and going forward, it's not difficult to see how the two parties believe they can justify any nakedly political moves. And the unraveling of these traditions is a slippery slope, in which both parties just assume the other side will probably take the next step when they're in power, so why wait?

The only things standing in their way now are tradition and a sense of thecollective good. And tradition doesn't seem to count for much anymore.

The rest is here:

We're all political nihilists now - Washington Post

What Colony Gets Right About Living in an Apocalypse – Gizmodo

Her chance of survival on Colony is slightly higher than on The Walking Dead. (Image: USA Network)

I gave up on The Walking Dead back in season two. While I like bleak slogs toward the extinction of mankind as much as the next girl, it had started to feel like the show had no interest in moving forward, and no interest in building a larger storyline. But imagine if it did? That is Colony.

The USA Network show, in which the citizens of Los Angeles are forced to live in a walled version of the city after an alien invasion, will end its second season tonight in a much bleaker place than it began. (Earlier this week, it was renewed for a third season.) And while we all enjoy cheer, this shows brand of gut-punching reality is as refreshing as it is shocking.

In Colonys first season, you were certain in every episode that the writers knew exactly where the show was headed, and it didnt hesitate in introducing a messy idealogical war between the primary characters. But the show also seemed poised to expand its world greatly by the season finale. Instead, season two emphasized claustrophobia.

Weve gotten more glimpses of the world beyond the walled city of LA, including extended stays in a hellish version of Santa Monica, and brief jaunts to Europe. Yet Earth is besieged by aliens who can incinerate with a look. They have all the power, have corralled all the citizens, and now its just a matter of destroying us in as expedient and useful a matter possible.

Another change this season: Colony gave humanity a ticking clock thats upped the stakes, and allowed the show to cut away any excess fat. Every storyline has a purpose and (so far) a payoff. From two sisters forced to choose between rebellion and collaboration, to two children challenged by their complacencythe show is pulling no punches and is taking its stories to their natural, and awful, ends. The plots have also been punctuated by shocking violence, the kind youd expect in a world where everyones number is going to come up before the series is over.

Whats more, Colony is a god damn bloodbath this season, and it has elevated a previously tame little alien invasion yarn into something deliciously rare and exciting. In an early season two episode, Colony featured one of the bleakest suicides on television. A few weeks ago I watched a likable side character pulverized into mist by an alien drone. Then another one exploded in a ball of fire. Two evil characters caught bullets in brutally shocking moments, and one poor schlub, well out of their league, was heartbreakingly murdered by their friends.

Ive never exactly understood the enduring appeal of The Walking Dead. The makeup is cool, and the violence is nice, but its a show steeped in nihilism and its made it difficult for me to engage. Colony is a very similar show in that the violence is well shot (at one point, theres a 10-minute tracking shot thats a beautiful combination of Children of Men and your favorite first person shooter) and its characters are all doomed.

But it still finds a bit of hope in each episode, and scrubs away just enough nihilism each week to give us a glimpse of the humans beneath that engenders that hopelessness. If youre wondering what the slow crawl towards the apocalypse might look like, Colony is giving you a great glimpse right now.

Read more:

What Colony Gets Right About Living in an Apocalypse - Gizmodo

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Four Big Critiques – China Digital Times

In June 2014, a senior inspector from the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection(the Partys top graft watchdog) warned thatthe Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) (an influential government think tank) had beeninfiltrated by foreign forces.This accusation came as two hallmark campaigns of the Xi Jinping administration were gaining momentum:Xisongoing Party corruption cleanup, and adrive to enforce ideological orthodoxythroughout both the Party and society.The warning of infiltration at CASS came afteraleaked internal Party memo known as Document No. 9exposed Xis ideological priorities: to resist false ideological trends, positions, and activities, including Western constitutional democracy, universal values, Western ideas of journalism, andhistorical nihilism. (Journalist Gao Yu was sentenced to seven years in prison in 2015 for allegedly leaking the document, but has since been granted medical releaseto serve the remainder of areducedsentenceunder house arrest.) Earlier, as hewas in the middle of his gradual accession to top Party and State leader, Xi hadwarned that aprimary reason for the collapse of the USSRwas due to their ideals and beliefs having been shaken.

Since the revelation of Document No. 9, Xi has overseen many related campaigns aimed at preserving Party ideas and beliefs.Xi hasreinforced Mao-era Party views on the role of the media,cracked down on liberal microbloggers, and subjected Chinese reporters tomandatory training in the Marxist view of journalism.Meanwhile, the nationsinstitutes of higher learning have seen a campaign against Western values,and a series oflegislation has been passed in effort to maintain ideological security.

Since CASS saw its ranks questioned, the think tank has been hard at work promoting the ideological orthodoxy that Xis policies have aimed at. On Weibo last month, user @TongZongjin (@) shared images and prefaces to CASS essay anthologies rallying against some of the undesirable ideological trends outlined in Document No. 9. The first CASS volume, published in December 2015, focuses on essays critiquinghistorical nihilism. Theterm, which came into favor in China after the pro-democracy movement of1989,essentially meansany telling of history that could challenge the inevitability of Chinese socialism orChinas correct place along that trajectory. CDThas translated the preface:

Edited by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Chinese Social Science Press

The leadership of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) places the highest degree of importance on the analysis, research, and critique of the current intellectual trend towards historical nihilism, and strives to actively engage in an unyielding struggle against this mistaken historical nihilist trend. Every year, in dealing with the problem of mistaken historical nihilism, my department takes the initiative on official media channels to make use of our willingness to speak out, and our aptitude for speaking out. At the same time, we make use of our full array of theoretical academic publishing and broadcasting platforms (newspapers, journals, websites, conferences and roundtables) to continue to put out a series of critical theoretical essays: This year alone we have completed more than one hundred works on this topic, setting the stage for a large-scale and influential public debate, and confirming our unequivocal opposition to mistaken historical nihilism. Using a critical approach, we have systematically exposed and profoundly explicated the fundamental character, danger, and means of expressing of historical nihilism, while establishing correct historical perspectives and ceaselessly strengthening the freedom of expression and freedom of influence of Marxist ideology and philosophy within the sphere of social science research. We have firmly asserted our right not only to engage in ideological work, but to manage and speak out on the work of others. These efforts have been met with widespread support from academic circles and individuals high and low, earning the overwhelming approval and praise of cadres of every rank.

In the struggle against historical nihilism and many other mistaken intellectual trends, the leadership of my department places the highest degree of importance on the cultivation of Marxist ideology for our leading cadres, in addition to the political studies and theoretical ideological education for our researchers and staff. To this end, we have organized annual book clubs for local leading cadres; implemented education courses for management level and above cadres; required ideological studies and Marxist theory composition courses for our entire staff; ideological research think tanks; and Marxist internet armies. These efforts form the basis of a nascent vanguard of Marxist and Party ideological workers.

Many of the essays in this collection were written and published by comrades from our organization or professional scholars from affiliated work units; others were composed by external scholars. Our goal in editing this book was to help strengthen our cadres grasp of historical materialism and make clear the fundamental character and danger of the intellectual trend, dispelling doubts and explaining away confusion, sorting sources, unifying our thinking, and improving our cognitive goals.

End of preface.

[Name Unclear]

Director and Party Secretary, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

December 8, 2015

[Chinese]

A prominent development in the Partys campaign against historical nihilism was the takeover last summer of the traditionally liberal journal Yanhuang Chunqiu. A former editor of the journal was also found guilty of defamation for questioning the orthodox account of one episode of revolutionary martyrdom, while blogger Sun Jie (aka Zuoyeben) was ordered to apologize and pay a symbolic one yuan in compensation for mocking two others. In February, two men were sentenced to three-and-a-half and five years in prison for distributing banned books including a history of the Partys rise to power. The landmark unified civil code whose preamble was a centerpiece of last months National Peoples Congress gathering seems set to institutionalize the war on historical nihilism: one controversial clause makes it a civil offense to harm the name, likeness, reputation or glory of heroes and martyrs.

The three volumes Critical Essays on Neoliberalism, Critical Essays on the Theory of Universal Values, and Critical Essays on the Concept of Western Constitutional Democracy,were each published in June 2016 withthe identical preface, translated below:

The actual progress of world history demonstrates that the eventual fate of a given nation or people is largely decided by whatever guiding ideology, social system, or path to development is chosen. Facing a new situation wherein our cultural ideology is undergoing a process of exchange, blending, and confrontation, the paramount task facing the frontlines of philosophical social science is not only to persist in upholding Marxism as our guiding ideology, but to engage in meaningful critiques of universal values, the concept of constitutional democracy, neoliberalism, historical nihilism, democratic socialism, and other mistaken ideologies from this position. We must place unfailing faith in the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, matched with an equal degree of faith in our theories, and faith in our systems.

After the Cold War ended, operating under the aegis of what the West calls universal values, one country after another was toyed with and torn apart, some falling into the flames of war, others to everyday chaos: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen are all classic examples. What is clear is that what the system of Western capitalist values brought to these countries was not the gospel or salvation but instead unmitigated unrest and disaster. The cruel lesson learned by these countries and regions demonstrates that there are no such thing as eternal values which can be universally applied to all societies, all countries, and all peoples.

Values have always been a product of the historical conditions of a specific social, economic, and political realities; and every value is specific, historical, transformative, and inseparable from certain socio-economic and political relationships. So-called abstract universal values, superseding social class and history alike, cannot independently exist in the real world. The universal values advocated by certain individuals contain an implicit political position and definite attempt: they are an ideological trap, aimed at our nation, with the goal of destroying the status of Marxism and replacing it with the ideology of the Western bourgeoisie. They are a fundamental negation of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), a negation of the guiding status of Marxism, a negation of the state system of the peoples democratic dictatorship, and a negation of the socialist system.

In recent years, constitutional democracy has emerged in the ideological circles of our nation as another mistaken intellectual trend. Against the backdrop of the Party Central Committees comprehensive deployment of its rule by law strategy, certain individuals have seized this opportunity to intentionally confuse rule by law, rule by constitution, and constitutional power with the fundamentally different Western concept of constitutional democracy.

The development of the political ideal of constitutional democracy accompanied the emergence of Western capitalism, gradually developing into the mainstream political and systematic position of the Western bourgeoisie class. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it defines the national ideology, political mode, and institutional design of Western bourgeoisie. But the constitutional democracy they advocate for in reality completely negates our nations socialist rule by law, our socialist system, our national system of a peoples democratic dictatorship under the leadership of the CCP, and replaces it with Western capitalist concepts and methods of rule by law, enacting a tripartite separation of powers, a multiparty system, and a parliamentary system. In other words, a capitalist system with a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Constitutional democracy clearly does not represent some form of universal democracy or even a universal value because it cannot be used as the system of rule in every county. Our nation is a socialist nation with a specific history and unique realities. What system or methods are appropriate for our nation should be decided by the national circumstances of our nation. Simply copying the political system or political methods of another country would be pointless, and might even have dire consequences for the future of our nation. China is a socialist nation and a developing superpower. We must make use of the beneficial aspects of foreign political civilizations, but never at the cost of abandoning the fundamental political system of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

The intellectual trend of neo-liberalism entered our nation during the reform and opening period [of the 1980s]. At its most essential, neo-liberalism is the ideological position of the Western bourgeoisie, representing the core concerns and values of the global economic monopoly of capital. By advocating for complete privatization, total marketization, absolute liberalization, and global unification, it establishes a global arena of an international economic monopoly of capital headed by America.

After economists in the Western economic capital monopolies of England and America were won over to neo-liberalism, what was once a purely economic system began to adopt a whole series of policies and behaviors advocating for specific ideological positions, concurrent with the rapid spread of neoliberalism across Latin America, Asia and Africa, and Eastern Europe. In the early 90s, the side-effects of neoliberalism first started to become apparent: serious harm was done to the economies of a series of neo-liberal countries, leading to social unrest and unspeakable hardship for the common people. In 2007, the subprime mortgage crisis exploded in America, eventually cascading into a global economic crisis.

For the past decade, wanting to kick start their economies while avoiding the developmental difficulties tied to economic deflation, major Western countries beginning with America have found themselves forced to approve ever larger government stimulus packages, infrastructure investments, and other interventionist policies. One might say that the global economic crisis, having its origin in Americas economic disaster, announced the complete bankruptcy of neoliberalism. This bankruptcy demonstrates that contemporary capitalism has not fundamentally solved the inherent contradiction which exists between socialized and private production. Periodic economic crises are an unavoidable product of this fundamental contradiction of capitalism. It is precisely because socialist market economics employs a different model, wherein the means of production are held communally, that economic crises are not only avoidable, but also predictable. The success of socialism with Chinese characteristics tells us that it is only the close integration of an allocation system based on communal ownership with market economics, making good use of the visible hand and invisible hand, that can express the true superiority of the socialist system.

[Chinese]

Translation by Nick.

See the article here:

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences' Four Big Critiques - China Digital Times

Europe conquers itself – Arutz Sheva

EU heads of stategathered in Rome on March 24 to celebrate the Rome Treatys anniversary and be received by Pope Francis. But what arethey celebrating?

Today Judeo-Christianity, on which the European leaders founded their civilizationwith Jewish wisdom, Greek philosophy and Roman Law, has been banished from public life. In 2003, European constituents were even unable to insert the word Christianity in the preamble of the constitution.

The Church of St. James in Stockholm, built to host 900 worshipers, today on Sunday houses not more than 30.

In France, the most important daughter of the Church, less than 5% of the population regularly attends Mass.

The English national Church is an object of fun and ridicule. In Wales, most of chapels have been turned into private homes.

In the Netherlands, only the faith based TV channels remind the people of the existence of a religion.

A weak will, a spiritual inertia, a religious fatigue and a lack of self-confidence are leading Europe to a psychological diagnosis of a defeated ego. Culturally, todays Europe sees the triumph of nihilism in a hedonistic uncultured form, spiritually miserable, but full of rights and social acquisitions. No matter how often European values are invoked and praised. Because a weak will, a spiritual inertia, a religious fatigue and a lack of self-confidence are leading Europe to a psychological diagnosis of a defeated ego.

Material prosperity in Europe has created a "shy" society, avoiding allconflicts and trying to ignore all the warning signs that it perceives as harmful to its own hedonism.

The example of Eastern Christians in Iraq and Syria is there to remind us that if we do not want to replace the cross with the crescent over Saint Peters dome, it is important to put an end to this voluntary suicide which, for almost half a century, led Europe to sacrifice everything important and rid itself ofevery form of authority, including that of Catholicism, to replace it with the dictatorship of the cool, the permanent injunction for pleasure closely watched by psychologists, hygienists and pornographers.

We rejoice unhindered, the heirs of the European hedonists of the 60s repeat for us.

But that is an expression of an infinite sadness, maybe a work of death: Europe is dying in celebrations and parties. But as the barbarians in Rome, Muslims are not the ones whoconvinced the Europeans that their own happiness hadpriority over everything else, or convinced them to have fewer children.

Radical Islam dreams of reaping the consequences of Europes fatal choices, but it is not their conquest, but the conquest of Europeans over themselves.

Europe is a civilization destroyed for a few seconds of pleasure, under the eye of barbarians who do not really from their non-Muslim fellow citizens. But, on their side, they have unlimited numbers.

Read more here:

Europe conquers itself - Arutz Sheva

Anti-Intellectualism Is Just As Revolutionary As Liberalismand Much More Dangerous – Slate Magazine

Painting of Edmund Burke by the studio of Joshua Reynolds.

National Portrait Gallery/Wikimedia Commons

This article supplements Fascism, a Slate Academy. To learn more and to enroll, visit Slate.com/Fascism.

Adapted from The Anti-Enlightenment Tradition by Zeev Sternhell. Published by Yale University Press.

While the 18th century is commonly perceived as the quintessential age of rationalist modernity, it was also the cradle of a second and strikingly different movement. In fact, at the very moment when rationalist thought seemed to have reached its peak, a comprehensive revolt against the Enlightenments fundamental views erupted in European intellectual life. From the second half of the 18th century to the age of the Cold War and today, the confrontation between these two modernities has formed one of the most prominent and enduring features of our world.

The Enlightenment wished to liberate the individual from the constraints of history, from the yoke of traditional unproven beliefs. This was the motivation of Lockes Second Treatise of Government, Kants Reply to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?, and Rousseaus Discourse on the Origin of Inequality: three extraordinary pamphlets that proclaimed the liberation of man. It was against the liberation of the individual by reason that this new Anti-Enlightenment movement launched its attack, and its campaign was infinitely more sophisticated and subtle than that of the classical, undisguisedly authoritarian enemies of the Enlightenment. This anti-Enlightenment movement constituted not a counterrevolution but a different revolution. It revolted against rationalism, the autonomy of the individual, and all that unites people: their condition as rational beings with natural rights.

This second modernity was based on all that differentiates and divides peoplea political culture that denied reason either the capacity or the right to mold peoples lives, saw religion as an essential foundation of society, and did not hesitate to call on the state to regulate social relationships or to intervene in the economy. Importantly, it did this in the name of a certain liberalismadvocating for a pluralism of values. In making its objective the destruction of the Enlightenments atomistic view of society, this attack announced the birth of a nationalistic communitarianism, in which the individual is determined by his ethnic origins, history, language, and culture.

ZEEV STERNHELL

Anti-Intellectualism Is Just As Revolutionary As Liberalismand Much More Dangerous

ROBERT O. PAXTON

Fascism Doesnt Die. It Takes on New Forms.

TIMOTHY SNYDER

Are You Prepared for an American Reichstag Fire?

- MULTIPLE AUTHORS

How Does the History of Fascism Help Us Understand Whats Happening Today?

KEVIN PASSMORE

Its Difficult to Define Fascism. That Doesnt Mean We Cant Oppose It.

THOMAS DOHERTY

1930s Hollywoods Love Affair With Authoritarian Jerks

A liberalism opposed to the Enlightenment made sense up until to the second half of the 19th century. But when a new society emerged as a result of the rapid industrialization of the European continent and the rise of nationalism among the masses, anti-Enlightenment liberalismoften deceptively attractive because its dangerousness was not always obviousthreatened the very possibility of the survival of democracy.

It was at the end of the decade in 1789 when the Old Regime collapsed in France, and the split between these two branches of modernity became a historical reality. And when the thought of the Franco-Kantian and British Enlightenments was translated into concrete terms by the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, the British political theorist Edmund Burke put out his Reflections on the Revolution in France.

From the start of his political and intellectual activity, Burke defined the Enlightenment as the guiding spirit of a movement of intellectual conspiracy whose aim was the destruction of Christian civilization and the political order it had created. According to Burke, the essence of the Enlightenment was to accept the verdict of reason as the sole criterion of legitimacy for any human institution. Neither history, nor tradition, nor custom, nor experience could ever fill the role of reason. Burke added that a societys capacity to assure its members a decent life would not be acceptable for the men of the Enlightenment. They are not content with a decent life: they demand happiness, or, in other words, utopia.

Burke denied reason the right to question the existing order. He contended that the existing order is consecrated by experience, by collective wisdom, and has a raison dtre that may not be obvious to each individual at all times but is the product of the divine will present in history. A society only exists through its veneration for history and its respect for the established church and the elites. Replacing the elites with other people and destroying the power of the church may be compared to the conquest of a civilized country by barbarians. The defense of privileges is thus the defense of civilization itself. That is why force has to be used to assure the survival of what exists. In other words, all means were justified to crush the revolution in France.

A true pioneer of ideological warfare, Burke invented the concept of containment, if not the word itself. Though it became famous during the Cold War, Burke first tried the tactic on America. He had been concerned with containing the pretensions of the colonists who were breaking away from the mother country and translating their natural rights into limited political terms, because he had hoped to confine the danger to a distant land and prevent it from spreading to Europe. When this same revolution of the Enlightenment took place in France, however, a policy of containment was no longer appropriate. When it was at the very gates of England, at the heart of Western civilization, one could only respond with all-out war.

Thus, this great British parliamentarian was the founder of the school of thought known today as neoconservatism. Authentic liberal conservatives like Tocqueville in France and Lord Acton in England, or, closer to our time, Leo Strauss, Michael Oakeshott, and Raymond Aron, feared the corrupting effect of power. They were the heirs of Montesquieu and Locke, and their great objective was to protect liberty through a division of power and by developing the capacity of the individual to stand up to the authorities. Against this, the representatives of neoconservatism are fascinated by the power of the state. Unlike the classical liberals, they aim not at limiting its intervention in the economy or in society but, on the contrary, at molding society and government in their image.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the historical importance, both in his own time and in the long term, of Edmund Burke and his fellow Anti-Enlightenment revolutionaries. Indeed, the 20th century was only truly born when rejection of the Enlightenment suddenly became a mass phenomenon. It was in a world that was changing at a previously unthinkable pace, when new ways of life, techniques, and technologies appeared all at once, and economic development, the democratization of political life, and compulsory education became living realities that were only dreams for the previous generation, that Burkes legacy gained popular support. Democracy, political liberty, and universal suffrageall recently acquiredappeared to an important part of the urban masses to be a danger to the nation and to modern civilization.

For all these thinkers, rationalism was the source of the evil: it led to materialism, to utopias, to the supremely pernicious idea that man is able to change things.

The year 1936 would seem to be a somewhat unfortunate time to wage war against the Enlightenment. But this was precisely the moment when the German historian and Nazi sympathizer Friedrich Meinecke gave his definition of historism, which demolished the concept of a common human nature, of a universal reason that gives rise to a universal natural law, regarding this way of thinking as empty and abstract. The direct consequence of this concept was a more or less radical general relativism: Meinecke was convinced that German historism was the highest stage thus far reached in the understanding of human affairs.

There was also an attraction of the historist attack on the Enlightenment for the generation of the Cold War in the 1950s. It was at that time that the totalitarian school came into being and one of its chief representatives, Isaiah Berlin, following in the footsteps of Meinecke and in the face of a Europe dominated by a left-wing and often communistic intelligentsia, took up the case against the rationalist Enlightenment. Hypnotized by the Cold War, he launched his attack on Rousseau and then on the idea of positive liberty, and in the name of liberal pluralism wrote a fulsome panegyric to negative liberty.

In his series of essays in Against the Current, Berlin made clear that he considered the principles of the French Enlightenment to be fundamentally opposed to those of a good society. Moreover, his interpretation of the Enlightenment repeats the principal clichs handed down from one generation to the next from Burke onward. These clichs have made a strong reappearance in our time.

For all these thinkers, rationalism was the source of the evil: it led to materialism, to utopias, to the supremely pernicious idea that man is able to change things. It killed instinct and vital forces; it destroyed the almost carnal connection between the members of an ethnic community and made one live in an unreal world. The existing social order, though it may not be perfect, made it possible to live a decent, civilized life. The permanence of Western civilizationthe great Christian civilizationcould only be ensured if its reality was not touched in its essence.

These scorners of the Enlightenment, were not turned toward the past generally. Their nostalgia was for a highly selective historical landscape. Historians of ideas and cultural critics who considered themselves philosophers as well, they saw the nation as the supreme framework of social organization. The kind of solidarity provided by the nation seemed to them greater than that provided by any other form of social cohesion. It is no accident that Burke can be regarded as one of the originators of nationalism.

For Berlin, as for Meinecke, there seemed to be no relationship of cause and effect between the war against rationalism, universalism, and natural rights and the war against democracy and its fall in the 20th century. These people did not believe that blocking and neutralizing the revolutionary potential in society meant abandoning the new social classes created by industrialization to the free play of economic forces, which inevitably gives rise to poverty and hence to revolts and revolutions. And as they advanced into the 19th century, the role assigned by these thinkers to the state was to control democratic tendencies, viewed as a threat to the natural order of thingsas demagogic illusions.

The inevitable process of democratization, the progressive access of the male population to universal suffrage, did not reconcile these liberals opposed to the Enlightenment to the principles of democracy. Instead it caused them to accept the disagreeable and, as they saw it, dangerous realities of political democratic rule. Some became conscious of the role a state could play in intervening in the economy in order to curb and canalize democracy. Some resisted democracy until they died.

It was also no accident if, as a result of seeing themselves as the defenders of a minority point of view, all these nonconformists ended up creating a new kind of conformism in promoting concepts that very soon became commonplace.

The most common reproach that the Anti-Enlightenment thinkers continually made to the people of the Enlightenment was that of having never left their study or the realm of abstractions, and as a result, being ignorant of the realities of the world as it was. It was Burke, one of the best parliamentary orators of his age, who originated this idea, but in fact it was only a myth.

Beyond all that divided the founders of the United States from the men of the French Revolution, the heritage of Locke and the Glorious Revolution of 1689 from Rousseau and Voltaire, or James Madison and Alexander Hamilton from tienne Bonnot de Condillac, Condorcet, and Saint-Just, there were certain convictions that were common to both parties. They were all convinced that they were working in a specific context to change or create a given situation and at the same time enunciating principles of universal significance. They were working on behalf of their own time, they wanted to change a world that was theirs and only theirs, but at the same time they had an acute awareness that they were initiating actions that would affect posterity without any possibility of return.

The most cogent example of the dual nature of their work was the fate of the most important piece of political philosophy ever produced in the United States. The Federalist, a simple collection of electoral pamphlets written during the campaign in New York State for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, had a clear and well-defined primary objective: to convince the population of this pivotal state that both liberty and property would be preserved and protected in a federal state with a strong central authority. Invoking the authority of Montesquieu and the Enlightenment, it also sought to show that liberty did not depend on the size of a country but on good institutions.

All while waging an excellent electoral campaign, The Federalists writers, Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, were perfectly conscious of the universal significance of their writings and actions. The Constitution dealt with the concrete problems that the Americans of the end of the 18th century had to confront, and it was voted in because it corresponded to their needs and hopes, but it formulated general principles that the founders thought to be just and good and consequently valid for all men in all times and places. This opinion was never disproved in the course of the next two centuries.

It is true that this is an almost perfect example: men called at a critical juncture in the history of their community to provide solutions to concrete political problems in a country on the margins of civilization gave answers of universal value and produced a classic of political thought. And in fact, the same can be said about Burke. It is likely that if the revolution was merely a reaction to a crisis of regime, a palliative to deal with bread riots or financial bankruptcy, an accident en route or the product of some machination, Burke would not have risen to the level of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or The Federalist, and his pamphlet, simply intended to fill a breach through which he saw the flood pouring in, would not have become, for more than two centuries, the intellectual manifesto of revolutionary conservatism.

All these writers wrote with the immediate application of their ideas in mind, but at the same time posed fundamental questions about human nature and the role of man in society. They gave an idea of what they thought a good society should be. They all tried to transcend the immediate context in which they lived and felt that they were stating eternal principles and essential truths. All the thinkers of the Anti-Enlightenment reflected on the rise and fall of civilizations and did not hesitate to position themselves within a perspective of 25 centuries when they engaged in dialogue with Plato and the principles of Athenian democracy.

The contentious coexistence of the Enlightenment and Anti-Enlightenment movements is one of the great invariables of the two centuries between our world and that of the end of the 18th century. But this is a point that generally escapes the attention of historians and critics of culture: If the enlightened modernity was that of liberalism which led to democracy, the anti-enlightened modernitycoming down into the street at the turn of the 20th centurytook the form of an intellectual and political movement that was revolutionary, nationalistic, communitarian, and a sworn enemy of universal values. Whether it is a matter of reactionary modernism or the conservative revolution, one is always confronted with the same phenomenon: the content and function of this movement remained the same. Its pet aversions remain Kant, Rousseau, Voltaire, and the philosophes of the Enlightenmentthe founders of the principles on which the democracies of the 19th and 20th centuries were founded.

Adapted from The Anti-Enlightenment Tradition by Zeev Sternhell;translated by David Maisel.Reprintedby permission of Yale University Press.

Read more here:

Anti-Intellectualism Is Just As Revolutionary As Liberalismand Much More Dangerous - Slate Magazine

Going overboard with cow protection – Kasmir Monitor

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar had attracted the ire of traditionalists when he wrote more than once that the cow is not a divine mother but only a useful animal. A substance is edible to the extent that it is beneficial to man. Attributing religious qualities to it gives it a godly status. Such a superstitious mindset destroys the nations intellect, he wrote in 1935.

Recent events have not been a good advertisement for the national intellect. The party that pays homage to Savarkar has never come to terms with his modernist rationalism. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Gujarat has amended a state law so that anybody found guilty of cow slaughter will be awarded a life sentence. The chief minister of Chhattisgarh has said that those who kill cows in his state will be hanged. Even acts of homicide or sexual assault do not usually result in the hanging of the guilty. Meanwhile, there is a massive crackdown on abattoirs by the new state government in Uttar Pradesh, ostensibly targeted at illegal establishments, but clearly trying to hurt the Muslim community that dominates the meat trade. Congress leaders such as Digvijaya Singh have said his party will back a nationwide beef bana useful reason to remember that the original laws against cow slaughter were introduced in many states when the Congress was the hegemonic force in Indian politics. This also opens up the possibility of competitive cow politics. And footloose vigilantes have taken it upon themselves to attack any person they believe is harming the sanctity of the cow, even by just throwing a stone at an animal. There have traditionally been two main arguments in favour of cow protection. First, the cow is the pivot of an agricultural economy. Second, it is central to Hindu religious beliefs. Neither of these two arguments can justify the harsh punishments that are rather casually being talked about. The economic argument does not survive an empirical test. First, as farming in India becomes increasingly mechanized, the demand for draught cattle in the fields is falling. Second, as milk-producing cows grow old and become unproductive, they become a financial burden on farmers. If farmers cannot sell them off to slaughterhouses, they either abandon the animals or starve them to death. Third, the rational response by farmers to the ban on cow slaughter has been to prefer buffaloes to cows, as is evident from both the official cattle census as well as price trends in cattle auctions across the country. The economics of an asset totally changes when its terminal value suddenly comes down to zero. Economists such as V.M. Dandekar and K.N. Raj showed many years ago that the factors determining cattle population are not slaughter bans or religious sentiments but the demand for livestock products such as milk and meat as well as the levels of technology used in agriculture. Indeed, the directive principle of state policy that says cow slaughter should be prohibited is itself derived from the economic argument. Article 48 of the Indian Constitution needs to be read in full: The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. The issue of religious sentiments is a more tricky one. There is ample proof in old religious texts that beef-eating was not uncommon in ancient India. However, that does not necessarily mean that the current generation of Hindus should not worship the cow. There is also the undeniable fact that cow slaughter was one of the flashpoints in medieval India under Muslim rule. The real issue right now is that the state has no right to send someone to jail for killing an animal. It is also important to remember that beef is one of the cheapest sources of protein. Some 80 million Indians eat either beef or buffalo meat, including 12.5 million Hindus, as shown in an article by Roshan Kishore and Ishan Anand in this newspaper in October 2015, based on their detailed analysis of sample data. This does not mean that devout Hindus who worship the cow should not voluntarily devote themselves to its protection by setting up gaushalas, or cow shelters, though there simply arent enough of these to cater to the growing number of abandoned cattle. The problem lies elsewhere. Bans on the killing of cows are in effect a burden on farmers who own cattle. Punishment for consumption of beef is an attack on the basic Constitutional right of every citizen to live the life she wants to. (http://www.livemint.com)

Read more here:

Going overboard with cow protection - Kasmir Monitor

I watched Alex Jones give his viewers health advice. Here’s what I … – Vox

The YouTube video shows girls convulsing in hospital beds, on the floors of their schools, losing control of their bodies, unable to walk or talk.

The young women have allegedly just been given shots of the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Instead of a lifesaving treatment, theyre left crippled, chemically lobotomized.

A voice over the disturbing footage screams: I am not a slave. You cannot force me to inject my kid with this poison. This is sick!

That voice belongs to Owen Shroyer, a reporter for Infowars, the right-wing, conspiracy theoryladen news site. Hes anchoring a classic Infowars health segment, featuring a passionate rant against mainstream medicine. In this case, the subject is a favorite on Infowars: vaccines and the damages they do to our youth.

When Shroyer appears onscreen again, his face is flushed and twisted in rage. You know what? Im sorry but F you! Okay? he says, squinting at the camera. F you if youre going to sit here and watch a video of young girls literally convulsing because of a vaccine that you say is safe and effective. F you! Youre disgusting.

If you know anything about the HPV vaccine or vaccine safety, its easy to dismiss this video as fringe lunacy. But Infowars is no longer a peripheral media player. The website now reaches more than 6 million unique US users each month. The YouTube channel has more than 2 million followers about as many as Vox.

I watched more than six hours of the show, and came away steeped in a dark view of the world. On Infowars, truth is provisional, science means nothing, and you cant trust anyone especially not your doctor, researchers, or experts of any kind. This is a parallel information universe, with deep suspicions of the establishment and government agencies and a deep appreciation for the populist president, Donald Trump.

As a medical reporter, Ive written a lot about shady peddlers of health misinformation; Infowars felt like familiar terrain. Exaggerated claims, cherry-picked studies reported out of context, and the promise of treatments and foods that will either kill or cure are more the rule than the exception in this corner of journalism.

But Infowars makes Dr. Oz and the Food Babe seem benevolent. The show goes so much further than simply misleading people about their personal health choices and a range of other subjects. Jones and Infowars are part of a political movement aimed at undermining and delegitimizing the institutions that are fundamental to democracy especially science. They also have connections that run all the way up to the White House.

Alex Jones is an ally and champion of President Trump, who told Jones in a 2015 interview, You have an amazing reputation. Trump may disparage institutions like the New York Times and the Washington Post on Twitter and Fox News, but he shares Infowars articles and videos.

It doesnt seem to bother the president that Jones has a long history of spreading conspiracy theories through his various media channels. Jones launched his first radio show in 1996, and the day after 9/11 he went on the air calling the tragedy an inside job.

A theme he returns to again and again is that the US government is actually controlled by an international faction called the New World Order. The globalists big banks, billionaires, mainstream media, pharmaceutical companies are actively conspiring against the interests of regular Americans.

Jones has said Oprah Winfrey is trying to reduce the African population by half, that Sesame Streets new autistic Muppet was designed to normalize an increasingly common disease thats caused by vaccines, and that the Atlantic and other lefty periodicals are hinting at an imminent decapitation of President Trump.

In this world, Andrew Wakefield, the discredited doctor who falsified data to suggest vaccines are linked to autism, is a pioneer and trailblazer who just wants to help keep people healthy. By contrast, Bill Gates is running a mass eugenics effort through his charitable work, and the HIV epidemic was actually created by the American government (which has incidentally been part of a Russian disinformation campaign about the US government).

Jones often talks about the pedophile rings that elites are helping to organize, and his suggestion that Hillary Clinton was running one out of a pizza restaurant in Washington, DC, was the reason a man walked into that shop with a gun last year threatening to kill people, in what has become known as Pizzagate.

Inciting violence is one problem with the show. Less obvious but equally worrying is that over the years, scientific experts and doctors have been popular targets, and empiricism and rationalism are under constant attack.

According to Infowars, vaccines are just one part of a serious attack on our health. Its also happening with fluoridation of the water supply, GMOs in our food, the chemicals in the environment, and the medications prescribed by doctors.

More recently, Infowars has aired segments about another health problem youve probably never heard of: a rarely discussed fungus epidemic [that] is spreading throughout America. Its a useful example of how the site spreads misinformation and denigrates science.

Instead of actual researchers, the fungus segments feature Infowars associate Dr. Edward Group. Group is not a doctor but a naturopath who also frequently alleges that researchers and mainstream medicine are colluding with government in a mass conspiracy to poison people. Hes said Food and Drug Administration officials raided his office because he was onto a promising cure for cancer. (I reached out to Group to interview him for this story. He declined the request.)

To establish this fungus epidemic, Group draws on science or the feeling of science. He talks about all the research hes done, and refers to citations from stacks of papers in front of him to support the idea that fungus and yeast overgrowth is causing everything from brain tumors and brain fog to skin conditions, itching, difficulty with vision, anxiety, fatigue, and the obesity epidemic.

It really is a problem most people are not familiar with, Group says on the show. The scientific community is deliberately hiding this fungus from view. As a matter a fact, most doctors and hospitals really do not take the time to check people for fungal infections.

Not to worry: Group and Jones have the solution.

They are peddling supplements called Myco-ZX to fight an epidemic theyve invented. Group claims the pills cleanse the body and boost the immune system to fight fungal overgrowth. These fungus fighters are one of numerous health products hawked on the show.

Watching these segments, I felt confused, disturbed. I understood why people might believe Jones and Group. Its hard to falsify many of the health claims they make. They also draw on real uncertainty and problems in science medical studies are often funded by the drug industry; the industry has done shady things to undermine the entire research enterprise.

The health care system has also failed many people. Doctors make mistakes and leave patients jaded and suspicious of their expertise. Medicine has come so far over the past century, but it often falls short of patients expectations. Its not difficult to see why the quick fixes and simple solutions Jones offers the game-changing pills to fight the fungus thats really causing all your health woes might resonate with millions of Americans.

Theres also the current political climate to consider. An environment in which people are distrustful of institutions can be fertile ground on which to promote conspiracy theories, said Brendan Nyhan, a professor at Dartmouth College who researches misperceptions about politics and health care. With Infowars, Jones is tilling that soil.

Exaggerating scientific uncertainty to sow doubt and confusion is nothing new. We saw this during the tobacco wars. We see this in the ongoing debate about climate change (which scientists agree is not actually a debate). Fake news isnt novel either, nor is medical misinformation on the internet.

Whats different about Infowars is the concerted effort to undermine institutions and politicize topics that have mostly been neutral like immunizations for children.

Dr. Oz may have brought anti-vaccine campaigners on air or spread magical thinking about health, but he didnt wrap it up in identity politics. Jones and his associates do, making a rejection of the medical establishment and science part of what it means to be on the populist right.

If to be skeptical of vaccines means to be a good conservative, [theres a problem], said Alan Levinovitz, a professor of philosophy and religion who has been studying pseudoscience. This misinformation is dangerous when it gets tied up with political ideology.

It's concerning in part because of the right-wing media's growing influence over the GOP. Infowars frequently calls on Trump to enact policy based on conspiracy theories. Sign an executive order to take fluoride out of the water! Group said once. And while the administration doesn't seem to be entertaining that particular idea, it's conceivable that the show could have some influence over the shaping of vaccine or abortion policy with deadly effects.

Science as an institution has, for hundreds of years, been viewed as the best method for producing knowledge. Until recently, science has also been relatively sacred across administrations and across partisan lines, said Dietram Scheufele, a professor of science communication at the University of Wisconsin Madison. Once we start eroding [science], we get into dangerous territory, he added. Think about how important science is for national security, how important it is for business. The very laptops this stuff is being written on wouldnt be possible if not for the science thats under attack.

This war on science playing out in the right-wing media is poised to damage one of our most valuable institutions a key driver of the economy, a source of our military strength and leadership in medical and technological innovation. In the Infowars universe, though, science is the enemy part of the globalist elite movement thats poisoning people, keeping them down. Anyone who cares about evidence and science: Ignore this seething movement at your peril.

Continued here:

I watched Alex Jones give his viewers health advice. Here's what I ... - Vox

How James Ramsey of RAAD Studio, Carlos Arnaiz of CAZA, and BalletCollective turned design into dance – The Architect’s Newspaper

Troy Schumacher is a corps de ballet member with New York City Ballet, one of the mostprestigious dance companies in the country. And while a job as a full-time athlete might be enough for some people, Schumacher is also the artistic director and choreographer for his own chamber-sized troupe, BalletCollective. All of its members are Schumachers fellow dancers at NYCB.

For the companys latest performance at the New York University Skirball Center for the Performing Arts, Schumacher explored his observations of how human bodies respond to built space. He approached architects James Ramsey, founder of RAAD Studio, and Carlos Arnaiz, founder and principal of CAZA, to collaborate on a project that would turn design into dance. Last season, I was already sold on the idea of working with architects because I thought our processeswould be very similar, said Schumacher. Whether youre creating performance or buildings, youre thinking about somethingthat has a larger scope but shows details. Youre thinking on two scales.

(Courtesy Whitney Browne)

Schumacher and his team took care to thoroughly investigate how the two disciplines could come together for a final project. We discussed how our respective disciplines are organized, how we record our work, how we make changes to our work as we go, and how our respective practices overlap, said Arnaiz.

Its not unusual for architecture and dance to go hand in hand. Just last year, Steven Holl created set pieces for Jessica Lang Dance, while the Guggenheim Museum frequently holds performances in its iconic rotunda. But these dances coexist with built architectural elementsnot so for BalletCollective. Instead, Schumacher chose to feature the dancers in a stripped-down environment. The stage at the Skirball center was entirely bare, with curtains lifted to reveal the dancers waiting on the sides, and their costumes were casual rehearsal wear. Until they started moving, there was no indication of the evenings architectural component.

One of Schumachers strengths as a choreographer is his unusual way of using formations. He often asks one dancer to move against the group or pairs a tall woman with a short man. Trios and duets are widely spaced around the stage, playing out contrary to the traditional ballet structure of a principalcouple and a shifting background of corps dancers. In Until the Walls Cave In, Ballet Collective dancers moved through lines, boxes or huddles that washed across the stage. Ramseys work, in comparison, also carves out space where heretofore there was none. Jamess work is about restoring or facilitating life in a place where it wouldnt normally exist, said Schumacher. We were really driven by light, concrete spaces and the growth happening within them.

(Courtesy Whitney Browne)

For his part, Ramsey entered the collaboration unsure of what to expect. I had little to no idea about the creative process for dance, Ramsey said, and I was completely blown away by how naturally our processes were able to mesh. Our conversations had to do with the lifeand death of human spaces, renewal, and the idea of tension as a dramatic architectural design tool. Here, though, Schumacher might have picked something up from his collaborator. The start-stop energy of his choreography makes it nearly impossible to establish dramatic tension.

Arnaizs contribution involved one specific drawing, resulting in The Answer, a duet for Anthony Huxley and Rachel Hutsell. Choreographers are always looking for new pathways, said Schumacher. Carlos emailed us a sketch on top of a photo of Allen Iverson. I was floored by the energy and idea behind it, and we just went with it. Arnaiz wrote about Iverson in his recent monograph, reflecting on how static geometric forms are brought to life by the creative process of architecture. As a result, The Answer plays off friendly competition.

Huxley is an elegant dancer who, while still able to have fun, is quite serious onstage. Hutsell, who is just beginning her professional career, might be expected to be timid, especially dancing with Huxley (he is several ranks higher than her at NYCB). Instead, shes remarkably grounded for a woman dancing in pointe shoes, which can complicate quick direction changes and off-balance steps. She eats up space with infectious energy. The dancers darting limbs seem to leave trails of lines and spirals across the stage, reminiscent of Arnaizs drawing.

Schumacher wasnt worried about disappointing audiences who might have expected structures or set pieces designed by Ramsey and Arnaiz. All the artists who contribute to BalletCollective are a source, he said. But invariably, the starting and ending point arent the same place. Asking for architectural input is about giving us a place to start.

Arnaiz and Ramsey were both surprised at what that starting place was able to yield. Ive worked with musicians, but never with dancers, said Arnaiz. It was fascinating to see how something transformed from concept to physical performance. Ramsey agreed: Troy brought a level of clarity and rationalism to the projects that was startling, and even led me to understand my own work more succinctly.

What Comes NextBalletCollective The NYU Skirball Center for the Performing Arts October 2728, 2016

Read more from the original source:

How James Ramsey of RAAD Studio, Carlos Arnaiz of CAZA, and BalletCollective turned design into dance - The Architect's Newspaper

Darwin, Marx, and Freud: The Genealogy of "Posthumanism …

Wesley Smith points out the simultaneously vapid and dangerous musings of Rice University scholar Cary Wolfe on posthumanism. That is the idea that we can and should progress beyond the ancient understanding that something fundamental separates human beings from other creatures and from the rest of nature.

Where does posthumanism come from? Wolfe is admirably frank about its genealogy:

There is, in fact, a genealogy of posthumanist thought that stretches back well before the 21st or even 20th century. You find hints of it in anything that fundamentally decenters the human in relation to the world in which we find ourselves, whether were talking about other forms of life, the environment, technology or something else. Perhaps more importantly, you find it in the realization that when you dont allow the concept of the human to do your heavy philosophical lifting, you are forced to come up with much more robust and complex accounts of whatever it is youre talking about. And that includes, first and foremost, a more considered concept of the human itself.

Darwinian thought was a huge step in this direction. So was Marxs historical materialism or the Freud of Civilization and Its Discontents. [Emphasis added.]

Darwin, Marx, and Freud the trio who did so much to give us modern culture with its deformities. Exactly how posthumanism cashes out in contemporary cultural terms is the subject of a detailed study with new polling data by John G. West, Darwins Corrosive Idea: The Impact of Evolution on Attitudes about Faith, Ethics, and Human Uniqueness. Download it now.

Photo credit: http://www.cgpgrey.com [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Im on Twitter. Follow me @d_klinghoffer.

Follow this link:

Darwin, Marx, and Freud: The Genealogy of "Posthumanism ...

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Framework Poster: The Patriot is a Vigilante – Screen Rant

Ahead of the latest episode What If airing on ABC this week, Marvel has unveiled a new poster for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. featuring the Patriot inside the Framework on the programs official Twitter page.In just a few days, the showwill return with an all new arc that looks to be the most ambitious one yet for the series. After a tense season building up the ideas of LMDs, the Framework, and post-humanism, the final batch of episodes this year will feature most of our heroes inside an alternate reality. The cliffhanger from the last episode teased a bit of the new status quo, but its been the shows marketing in the weeks since that have given us a glimpse into the new Hydra-controlled reality.

Said to be a world where each characters one major regret is erased, well see Coulson as a school teacher explaining the threat of Inhumans and the history of the Cambridge Incident, Daisy and Ward back together and loyal members of Hydra along with May, and Fitz in a frightening new role. But they wont be alone.While were not quit sure how the apparently deceased Simmons will factor in, the status of Mace has been unknown. Its unclear exactly what his regret would be, but its likely linked to lying about being a hero during the events ofCivil War that led him to not only takeover S.H.I.E.L.D., but become a superhero.

You can check out the poster for yourself below. We know that Mace will still be quite active as the Patriot inside the new world. The artwork is the latest in a line of similar one-sheets Marvel has revealed recently:

From the looks of it, the Patriot will be a vigilante, possibly assisting the Inhuman resistance. We know hes passionate about Inhuman rights, but its surprising to see him suited up. Does this mean in the new reality he actually did the heroic things hes said to have done? More intriguing, why would Aida allow such a disruptive force to run rampant in her constructed reality? Itll be exciting to see how things play out, and what role the Patriot has in fighting Hydra.

Meanwhile, it looks like Aida has decided to craft herself a new identity as well. Within the Framework, shell be portraying Madame Hydra, a new take on a classic comic book character. Hopefully, this direct involvement will give us some answer as to why the LMD has decided to become such a Hydra fan in her new reality. And aside from all the core cast, the Framework willalso see past characters come back to life. Like Ward, we may see a few agents and enemies return to the show. All in all, it looks to be an exciting conclusion to the season, though hopefully not the series.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.season 4 returns with What If April 4th @ 10 p.m. on ABC.

Source: Twitter

More here:

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Framework Poster: The Patriot is a Vigilante - Screen Rant

Happily God-less clergy say this time, it really is their year; Washington Post uncritically says, ‘Amen’ – GetReligion (blog)

Back in the dim recesses of history, I wrote for several information technology publications.

A running joke in the late 1980s and early 1990s, was that thisyear, whichever year that was, would be the "Year of the LAN," or local-area network, that had long been prophesied. My colleagues and I would smirk a bit whenever some conference speaker declared this, and go back to our reporting.

The "Year of the LAN" did eventually arrive. Anyone who has a home network, wired or wireless, could be said to have ushered it in. But it came gradually, without the fanfare many in the industry sought to attach to this trend.

I had similar emotions when looking over a story in The Washington Postproclaiming the advent of a growing coterie of humanist clergy. Though posited as an oxymoron, the article noted that humanists -- who say there is no God and declare they can live ethical lives without a deity or scriptures to guide them -- need leaders, too. From the article:

The Postitem is resonating in other quarters, it appears. Maine's Portland Press-Heraldpicked it up, and perhaps other papers have or will do so. It has the "man-bites-dog" quality of many click-worthy news articles. In this case we are talking about self-proclaimed "God-less" clergy. This is also a story that has been written many times. It's a trend that journalists have been seeing on the horizon for quite some time now.

But how widespread a phenomenon is it, really? Even the Postacknowledges that this affects only "a small portion" of the 25 percent of Americans who claim no religious affiliation or "identify as atheist or agnostic." How small? How significant? Is there any way to measure the growth?

I ask because, like the aforementioned "Year of the LAN," this isn't the first time the Posthas heralded a humanistic congregation's rise. Go back to December 2007, when the paper looked at "Believers in Community," hinting at growth in the sector:

So we've gone from 2.1 percent as atheist and 4.3 percent agnostic in 2007 via the NORC, to "a small portion," unspecified. Forgive me if I don't see an ordained humanist tsunami just yet.

Missing from the latest Postreport -- and from its predecessor article, for that matter -- is any outside academic voice, such as Stephen P. Weldon, a University of Oklahoma professor who has studied the history of humanism for the past 20 years. Ironically, Weldon was quoted in a 2001 Postarticle about humanistic Judaism, which is not available online. (I found it via http://www.nexis.com.)

Weldon's voice, or another academic's, would have been a welcome addition to the story. Context is vital, I believe, to understanding how big or important a particular group is. Here, there's little in the way of context.

If I were the assigning editor, I'd ask the reporter to go back and get some more voices, some clearer statistics and more of a sense of direction. "A small portion" just doesn't cut it, in my view. And to herald 2017 as the "Year of Humanist Clergy" takes me back to those tech-conference days when the "Year of the LAN" was proclaimed again and again, until one day, it actually happened with virtually no fanfare.

Image with blog post: Sincere Kirabo, American Humanist Association; John Croft, Ethical Society of St. Louis; Chris Steadman, Yale University Humanist Director, at the Humanist Clergy Collaboratory in Washington, D.C. Photo via American Humanist Association on Twitter.

Read the rest here:

Happily God-less clergy say this time, it really is their year; Washington Post uncritically says, 'Amen' - GetReligion (blog)

Godless flocks grow, attract like-minded – NWAOnline

WASHINGTON -- The name of the gathering almost sounded like an oxymoron: the Humanist Clergy Collaboratory.

A meeting to organize religious leaders -- for people who don't believe in organized religion?

"Well," Amanda Poppei said, "some people would say we're not that organized."

But the humanist clergy -- spiritual leaders for people who don't like to talk about God but do like to gather for a moral purpose -- are trying to get a lot more organized. The collaboratory, which Poppei hosted at the Washington Ethical Society, the 73-year-old humanist congregation that she leads in Northwest Washington, brought together about 40 of them for a first-of-its-kind gathering of nonreligious clergy.

These clergy without a God say their movement is poised to grow dramatically right now, as young American adults report a lack of religious belief in higher numbers than ever before, but also yearn for communal ties and a sense of mission in a tumultuous time.

"Even more since the election, we have folks say, 'I'm really looking for a way either to feel hope or to do justice,'" Poppei said. The Sunday after the presidential election, dozens of distressed liberal Washingtonians showed up at her service, and many have gotten involved in the congregation. Now, Poppei sees an opportunity for not just her community but for humanists nationwide.

Fueled especially by the millennial generation, the portion of Americans who say they don't ascribe to any particular religion has increased dramatically, from 5 percent in 1972 to 25 percent today. A small portion of those 25 percent identify as atheist or agnostic. The rest tend to describe themselves using terms like "spiritual but not religious" or just "nothing in particular."

These nonreligious people, of course, tend not to join religious congregations. But the clergy who gathered at Washington Ethical Society last week offer them just that.

Almost all of these clergy hold services, often on Sunday mornings. As an alternative to theism, these groups proffer humanism -- a belief in the power of humanity and the human spirit, without supernatural intervention.

"We need spaces for secular moral stories, to raise up ideals, as a hub for service. We can't do service as individuals," said James Croft, who is involved in the 400-member Ethical Society of St. Louis. "Congregations help people make sense of terrible events. Congregations do memorials, weddings, baby namings."

Humanists looking for gatherings have more options than they might think. At last week's meeting, Susann Heap of the United Coalition of Reason demonstrated a new app for finding hundreds of humanist meetings in dozens of cities, with activities ranging from secular meditation to God-free addiction recovery.

Heap, who was in training to become a minister in the Church of England before reading noncanonical gospels and other materials that led to a change of heart, explained the motivation for the app: "Why should a person who doesn't believe in a deity feel alone?"

Most of the clergy at this summit, who came from as far away as the United Kingdom and Saskatchewan, belong to one of various humanists movements: the Ethical Culture movement; the Society for Humanistic Judaism, which keeps Jewish culture but strips God out of it; and the Unitarian Universalist church, which welcomes members to believe in God or not. Poppei, who trained as a Unitarian Universalist minister and now leads a congregation in the Ethical Culture movement, worked with humanist Rabbi Jeffrey Falick and Unitarian minister David Breeden to convene a broader range of humanists at Poppei's congregation for a two-day meeting last month. They think the last such meeting was held in 1984 -- and before that, in the 1870s.

The topics of discussion sessions during the meeting include: how humanists should counsel people who are dying or grieving; how people who don't have faith can still participate in interfaith programs; and what spirituality means, and whether humanists can or should lay claim to it.

"Sometimes atheists, in my experience, they cede too much linguistic ground to theists, when it comes to spirituality," Sincere Kirabo, a social justice organizer at the American Humanist Association, said in one of the discussion groups.

Barry Swan, the leader of a Rochester, N.Y., humanistic synagogue, agreed. "I have a faith in humanity. I can have faith also. I am also not a nonbeliever."

The clergy discussed ways that they could work together on future projects, like serving more humanist patients in hospitals, sharing scripts for faith-free weddings and getting involved in social justice movements. The keynote speakers, Kirabo and Kansas City activist Diane Burkholder, spoke about the humanist community's need to do more to include black people and address racism.

But for all the grand plans, Poppei boiled the explanation for what these nonreligious congregations can do down to very simple terms. A new member came to her service recently, she said. The woman was in her 30s, had been an atheist all her life, and had never much thought that she was missing anything by not belonging to a religious community. Except one thing.

"I didn't know, when I got sick someday, who was going to bring me a casserole," the woman told Poppei.

Now that she's in an Ethical Culture society, she knows where that supportive casserole will come from, Poppei said. "I think that's what people are looking for."

Religion on 04/08/2017

Read this article:

Godless flocks grow, attract like-minded - NWAOnline

Peace, Trump, censorship and fake news up for discussion – Ashland Daily Tidings

Local report

Independent media producers, students, local activists and community groups will be celebrated next week duringIndependent Media Week, organized around the theme A well-informed citizenry is a cornerstone of democracy. This will be the 13th year for the week spotlighting grassroots media and its creators.

The locally sourced event began in April 2005 when, at the request of citizen media activists who launched KSKQ, the local low-power FM radio station, and developed the Rogue Valley Independent Media Center, the city of Ashland proclaimed its first Independent Media Week to celebrate efforts to make public records more readily accessible and to broadcast our community meetings and civic events.

Every year since, a coalition of local independent media organizations has asked the city to proclaim one week in April as Independent Media Week. And, in 2015, a bill introduced by then-Rep. Peter Buckley passed the Oregon legislature and was signed into saw declaring the third week of April each year "as Independent Media Week to encourage all Oregonians to seek out and explore the rich diversity of independent media available to and within their communities."

This year's celebration runs Sunday through Saturday, April 9 to 15. It includes discussions, workshops and a presentation by Project Censored director Mickey Huff.

On Sunday, April 9, there will be an open house breakfast from 10 a.m. to noon at the KSKQ 89.5/94.1 FM community radio station studio at 330 East Hersey St., No. 2, in Ashland. The public can meet producers and staff, learn more about KSKQ and enjoy a light breakfast.

There will be a panel discussion on "Cultivating a Culture of Peace in an Era of Trump: What's the Media's Role?" from 6 to 8 p.m. Monday, April 10, in the Arena downstairs at Stevenson Union on the campus of Southern Oregon University.

Local media representatives and the audience will discuss whether and how the media should play a role in advancing goals advocated by the Ashland Culture of Peace Commission (ACPC), including transforming attitudes, behaviors and institutions so they better foster harmonious relationships, particularly in time when the information landscape has been roiled by new national leadership with its own way of doing things.

Panel members are Jeff Golden, producer and host of Immense Possibilities on select PBS stations; Bert Etling, editor of the Ashland Daily Tidings; Jason Houk, publisher of the Rogue Valley Community Press and news director for KSKQ community radio; and Hannah Jones, editor of The Siskiyou, the Southern Oregon University student-run news website.

David Wick, executive director of the ACPC, will say a few words about the work of the commission. Also joining the conversation via a video link will be Dr. David Adams, the coordinator of the Culture of Peace News Network and former UNESCO director of the International Year for the Culture of Peace, proclaimed for the Year 2000 by the United Nations General Assembly, who will provide an international perspective on the Culture of Peace and the vital role media plays in its evolution.

Critical Media Literacy Education: The Antidote to Fake' News, Media Filters, and Propaganda in a 'Post-Truth World" is the focus of a lecture by Mickey Huff, director of Project Censored, who will speak at 6 p.m. Friday, April 14, in the Arena at Stevenson Union.

Huff is director of Project Censored, founded in 1976, and president of the Media Freedom Foundation. He has edited or co-edited eight volumes of "Censored" and contributed numerous chapters to these works dating back to 2008. Huff sits on the advisory board for the Media Literacy and Digital Culture graduate program at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut, and serves on the editorial board for the journal Secrecy and Society. He also represents Project Censored as one of the cosponsoring organizations for the National Whistleblowers Summit held annually in Washington, D.C.

Another highlight of Independent Media Week is presentation of the Hal Jamison Independent Media Award. Jamison was a long-time Ashland resident and supporter of independent, community media. This award is dedicated in his honor and showcases a community member who is dedicating their time and energy to support our independent media resources.

Independent Media Week sponsors include KSKQ 89.5/94.1 Community Radio, the Ashland Culture of Peace Commission, Southern Oregon Jobs with Justice and the UN Club of SOU. For more information, call Jason Houk at 541-841-8341.

Read the original post:

Peace, Trump, censorship and fake news up for discussion - Ashland Daily Tidings

Political Correctness Isn’t About Censorship It’s About Decency – Huffington Post

What I think the political correctness debate is really about is the power to be able to define. The definers want the power to name. And the defined are now taking that power away from them.Toni Morrison

Never trust anyone who says they do not see color. This means to them, you are invisible.Nayhyirah Waheed

Not Steven. Not Stephen. Certainly not Steveareno.

Its a preference. My preference. My choice. And if people want to be in my good graces, theyll comply with my wishes.

Theres nothing strange or unreasonable about this. We do it all the time usually when were being introduced to someone.

Nice to meet you, Steve. Im Elisha.

Elisha? What a beautiful name!

Please. Call me Steve.

Is there anything wrong with that? Does that stifle conversation? Does it stop people from talking freely to each other?

No. Certainly some names are hard to pronounce or in my case remember. But overcoming those hurdles is just common decency. Its not too much to ask especially if youre going to be dealing with this person for an extended length of time.

The idea that allowing people to define themselves somehow shuts down conversation is rather strange. But its the essence of opposition to political correctness.

Political correctness is tyranny with manners, said conservative icon Charlton Heston.

I wonder if he would have felt the same if wed called him Charlie Hessywessytone.

A more fleshed out criticism comes from President George H. W. Bush who said, The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain expressions, even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.

Is that true? Is political correctness really censorship? Thats the conflation made by many conservatives and even some liberals. After all, popular Left-wing comedian Bill Maher sarcastically calls his HBO show Politically Incorrect, and he often rails against the practice.

Theres a kernel of truth to it. We are asked to change the way we speak. Were asked to self-censor, but we already do this frequently without wailing against a loss of free speech.

Human beings are subject to various impulses, but as adults, we learn which ones we can act on and which we shouldnt. I may think it would be hilarious to run into a crowded movie theater and yell, FIRE! However, I know that doing so while possibly funny to a certain kind of person would result in injuries and trauma as moviegoers stampede out of the theater. So I dont do it. Is that censorship? Maybe. But its censorship with a small c.

The Hestons, Bushes and Mahers of the world seem to think political correctness is more like Capital C Censorship. But this is demonstrably false.

That kind of Censorship is the act of officials, possibly agents of the government, a corporation or some other formal bureaucracy. But political correctness has nothing to do with officials. There are no censors. There are only people who ask to be named a certain way.

A censor looks at a news report of military operations in Iraq and deletes material that would give away the armys location. Political correctness is nothing like that. It involves someone asking others to refer to themselves THIS WAY and not THAT WAY.

The penalties for violating Censorship are official. Ask Chelsea Manning who until being pardoned by President Barack Obama - was serving a 35-year prison sentence for doing just that. The penalties for violating political correctness are social. You may be criticized, condemned or disliked.

If you criticize Manning for releasing classified documents to Wikileaks, youre not violating political correctness. Thats your opinion, and youre entitled to it. However, Manning is a trans woman who is going through hormone replacement therapy. If you refer to her as him you are violating political correctness. Youre naming her in a way that violates her wishes. The penalty is not a prison sentence. Its a sour look.

So political correctness is not Censorship. In some ways, the confusion comes from the term political correctness, itself.

Though its origins are hard to pin down, it appears to have been coined by the Soviets to mean judging the degree of compatibility of ones ideas or political analysis with the official party line in Moscow. At least thats what the International Encyclopedia of Social Studies says.

The term came to prominence in the United States in conservative writer Dinesh DSouzas book Illiberal Education. He disparaged affirmative action as a kind of political correctness that gave preference to (what he saw as) unqualified minority students over whites in college admissions.

So the first mention of the term in the USA was simply to disparage liberal political policies. It was a ham-handed way of comparing the Left with the Soviets. Yet somehow this term has become the handle by which we know simple civility. Its kind of hard to feel positively about a concept that begins with a mountain of unearned negative connotations.

Conservatives know the power of getting to name something. Its their go-to propaganda tactic and lets them control much of the debate. For instance, thats why the Right loves to call Social Security an entitlement. Theres truth to it because youre entitled to getting back the money you pay in, but its full of unearned negative connotations as if these people were somehow demanding things they dont deserve.

In essence, political correctness shouldnt be political at all. Its just kindness. Its just being a decent human being. Dont purposefully call someone by a name they wouldnt appreciate. Respect a persons ownership of their own identity.

And for some people thats hard to do. Their conceptions of things like gender, sexuality, race and religion are extremely rigid. The only way to be a man is THIS WAY. The only way to be spiritual is THAT WAY. But if they give voice to these ideas in the public square especially in the presence of people who think differently they will be frowned upon.

But is this really so dissimilar to the crowded movie theater? Refusing to acknowledge someone elses identity is harmful to that person. It tramples the soul,similarly to the way their body would be trampled in a stampeded exit. So you shouldnt do it.

The result is an apparently much more tolerant society. Its no longer okay to use racial, cultural, gender and sexual stereotypes in public. Youre forced to give other people consideration or else face the consequences of being disliked. And on the surface, thats a much more inviting world to live in.

However, there is a glaring problem. In some ways, this has made public discourse more antiseptic. People dont always say what they mean in the public square. Its not that theyve changed the way they think about the world. Theyve just learned to keep it to themselves until theyre around like-minded individuals. They reserve their racist, classist, sexist language for use behind closed doors.

This is why when Im at a party peopled exclusively by white folks, some partygoers may let racial epithets slip out. And we all laugh nervously to be polite. Or maybe its more than politeness. Maybe for some its to relieve the tension of such refreshing candor like taking off a girdle. Fwew! Here, at least, I can say what I really think without having to worry about people looking down on me for it!

Since such reactions occur mostly in homogeneous groups, it makes the world look much more enlightened than it really is. Pundits and policymakers look around and cheer the end of these social ills when they havent ended at all. Theyve merely gone underground.

And so we have an epidemic of colorblind white people who cant see racism because of the gains of political correctness. Somehow they forget those unguarded moments. Somehow they havent the courage to examine their own souls. Or perhaps they dont care.

And so we have the conundrum: which is better to live in a world where all individuals have the right to name themselves or to live in a world where our most basic prejudices are on display for all to see?

Personally, I pick political correctness, and heres why.

Words are important. We think in words. We use them to put together our thoughts. If we continue to respect individuals names in word, eventually well begin to do so in thought and deed.

This isnt mind control. Its habit. Its recognizing an ideal and working toward it. As Aristotle taught, the way to become a good person is to act like one. Eventually, your preferences will catch up with your habits.

I think thats whats happening today. Look at the children. Theyre so much less prejudiced and racist than we, adults. This is because theyve learned political correctness first. They didnt have to unlearn some archaic white-cisgender-centrism. This is normal to them, and I think thats a good thing.

Obviously some people will balk at this idea. They will look at this ideal as reprehensible. They want to return to a world where women were little more than property, a world where black people knew their place, where sexual identity was as simple as A or B.

But I think most of us recognize that this is not a world where wed want to live. Modern society can be scary and confusing but trying to respect everyone as a person isnt a bad thing. Its consideration, concern, warmth.

Perhaps the best way to love your fellow humans is to call them by their proper names.

A similar version of this article originally was published on my Website.

Continued here:

Political Correctness Isn't About Censorship It's About Decency - Huffington Post

Trigger Warning: A High School Censors A Speech About Censorship – Forward

Wallkill Senior High School just censored my lecture about censorship.

Several months ago, the school in an upstate New York community known for its prisons and apple orchards invited me to participate in its annual Authors Day event on April 4 and 5. Published writers gab to administrators, librarians and educators over a buffet dinner and then lecture to several classes of students the following day. Its a schlep from Manhattan, but writers receive a modest honorarium and I enjoy talking to kids about my passion.

The talk focused on my book, Killed Cartoons: Casualties From The War On Free Expression (W.W. Norton), a collection of editorial art that newspapers and magazines deemed too controversial to publish. The schools website graciously described me as a top journalist on the front lines of world news and politics who has written 2 critically acclaimed books on the censorship of political cartoons and news articles.

Now I had been warned that the school is located in a conservative district, and I understood that the underlying topic of my talk the embattled free press in the Trump era could prove controversial. But the school should have known what it was getting into. After all, I did not write a young adult novel about a talking purple whale, but hard-hitting nonfiction books on censorship. And my first audience primarily educators with a mission to opening minds for a living would, I assumed, be interested in my message even if it werent exactly theirs.

I assumed wrong.

Around dessert time, I walked to the lectern in the neighborhood Italian restaurant and joked that the audience would be getting a second helping of broccoli.

Unlike the other authors, creators of childrens books who spoke ad hoc about how they became writers, I prepared remarks, because I had something important to say: The leader of the free world has declared war on our free press, and his multi-pronged assault endangers our democracy.

On February 24, President Trump stood before an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., and smeared journalists by calling them enemy of the people.

That particular phrase, enemy of the people, holds a sinister place in the history of political rhetoric, as I told my fidgety audience. Among those who have launched such verbal missiles to demonize their opponents are Adolf Hitlers minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, who labeled Jews enemies of the German people murderous Chinese dictator Mao Zedong, and Russian autocrat Joseph Stalin.

As the BBC recently recounted, during Stalins long, brutal reign, out-of-favour artists and politicians were designated enemies and many were sent to hard labour camps or killed. Others were stigmatised and denied access to education and employment.

People stared at their brownies and avoided my eyes, except some of the bulked-up guys, maybe gym teachers, who looked like they wanted to fire a dodge ball at my head.

I then noted that just last week, in a tweet that sailed mostly under the radar, Trump, who has sued journalists for writing unflattering stories about him in the past, proposed weakening the laws protecting a free press. The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years, he wrote, ominously adding, Change libel laws?

Eviscerating the laws protecting publishing (which is not unimaginable if Senate Republicans eliminate the filibuster for legislation, as some observers believe will happen) would make it much harder for journalists to do our jobs exposing public corruption and corporate malfeasance and much easier for the super-rich and big business to suppress the truth.

The Trump administrations assault on the media goes beyond attempts at intimidation. The presidents recent budget proposal would eliminate the relatively modest government support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, one of the most respected sources of news in the country.

I also pointed out that Trump doesnt hate all media. In fact, hes a fan of Alex Jones, a racist radio host who argued that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the U.S. government, and that the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, was a giant hoax.

Not long after Trump launched his presidential campaign, he appeared as a guest on Joness InfoWars show to flatter the host. Your reputation is amazing, gushed the president, a comment that I still find amazing.

Someone walked out about then. Not slinked out to the bathroom, but marched out in audible disgust. Now I know how comedians feel when they bomb.

Maybe some history will work, I thought to myself.

Our Founding Fathers understood that a vibrant, independent press and a well-informed citizenry stood in the way of tyranny and was essential to the success of their experiment, as they referred to democracy. Thats why they included freedom of the press in the First Amendment. Unfortunately, only 11% of Americans could identify freedom of the press as a constitutionally enshrined First Amendment right, according to the Newseum Institute.

Thomas Jefferson, who endured intense scrutiny from reporters during his presidency, nevertheless consistently defended the field of journalism. Were it left to me, he wrote in 1787, to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter.

Donald Trumps war on the press has prompted protests from prominent members of his own party. Former president George W. Bush, hardly a liberal, pointed out that we need the media to hold people like me to account. I mean, power can be very addictive and it can be corrosive and its important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power.

Without a free press, Sen. John McCain worried that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time thats how dictators get started.

That approach didnt work either, so I wrapped up, explaining that the administrations palpable hostility prompts some media organizations to rededicate themselves to the mission of public interest journalism and others to cower in fear and engage in self-censorship. And, that editorial cartoonists are arguably the most vulnerable of journalisms foot soldiers, given the simple power of their expression. A vulnerability shown by the number of full-time cartoonists at newspapers dropping, from about 2000 in the year 1900, to around 90 when I published my book in 2007, and fewer than 30 today.

Reprinted with permission of Paul Combs.

Killed by the Tampa Tribune, 2005.

Youve been a terrific audience

Keepin it light, David, said one of my hosts, who later delivered the news by phone that my talk to the students the next day would be canceled due to a scheduling conflict. I am pretty sure that the other authors, who discussed less contentious topics, such as the teacher who first inspired them to read, spoke right on schedule.

The students arguably are the ones losing out. They would have benefited from a interacting with a professional journalist with experience on the front lines of world news and politics, and by civilly discussing polarizing issues with someone they might not necessarily agree with.

Still, I learned a few lessons from the experience: The divisions in this country are deeper than I expected; people seem less willing than ever to engage in debate, and the status of the press down to about 20% in 2016 from 51% in 1979, [according to Gallup], (http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx) is seriously damaged, hindering our ability to effectively communicate sometimes difficult-to-digest truths.

On the bright side, at least I didnt have to eat lunch in the cafeteria.

David Wallis is the Forwards opinion editor. Contact him at wallis@forward.com

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

Read the rest here:

Trigger Warning: A High School Censors A Speech About Censorship - Forward

Russia Is Trying to Copy China’s Approach to Internet Censorship – Slate Magazine

Opposition supporters take part in an unauthorized anti-corruption rally in central Moscow on March 26.

Alexander Utkin/AFP/Getty Images

When you hear the words Russia and internet, you probably think of Kremlin-backed hacking. But the internet is also a powerful tool for Putins opposition. Last month, the internet helped spark Russias largest anti-government protests in five years. Russia respondedby blocking access to webpagesthat promoted demonstrations.

This is part of a larger story. Just a few years ago, Russians had a mostly free internet. Now, Russian authorities would like to imitate Chinas model of internet control. They are unlikely to succeed. The Kremlin will find that once you give people internet freedom, its not so easy to completely take it away.

I lived in Moscow in 2010 after spending years researching internet activism in China. I quickly found that Russia and China had very different attitudes toward the web. The Great Firewall of China blocked overseas sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. In Russia, by contrast, you could find almost any information online. This was largely because Russian authorities didnt view the internet as a serious political threat. That changed in late 2011 and early 2012, when Moscow was the site of the largest anti-government protests since the end of the Soviet Union. Social media helped organize those demonstrations, and President Vladimir Putin took note. A law that took effect in late 2012, to give just one example, granted Russian authorities the power to block certain online content.

Moscow clearly admires Beijings approach. Last year, former Chinese internet czar Lu Wei and Great Firewall architect Fang Binxing were invited to speak at a forum on internet safety. The Russians were apparently hoping to learn Chinese techniques for controlling the web. Russia has already taken a page or two from Chinas playbook. While Facebook and Twitter remain accessible in Russia, at least for now, a Russian court ruled to ban LinkedIn, apparently for breaking rules that require companies to store personal data about Russian citizens inside the country. This could be a warning to companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook, which risk being blocked in Russia if they refuse to follow such rules.

Both Russia and China have made clear that they wish to regulate the internet as they see fit, without outside interference. Chinese President Xi Jinping has stressed the importance of internet sovereignty, which essentially means that individual countries should have the right to choose their own model of cyber governance. Putin has taken this idea one step further by calling the internet a CIA project. By this logic, Russia needs to proactively protect its own interests in the information sphere whether by cracking down on online dissent or using the internet to spread its own version of events.

Russia internet expert Andrei Soldatov, author of the book The Red Web, says the Kremlin certainly looks for something close to the China approach these days, mostly because many other things failedfiltering is porous, global platforms defy local legislation and are still available. Soldatov says that the government would like to have direct control of critical infrastructure such as the national system of domain distribution, internet exchange points, and cables that cross borders. He adds that this approach, which may not even be successful, would be more of an emergency measure than a realistic attempt to regulate the internet on a day-to-day basis.

Chinas method has worked because Beijing has long recognized the internet as both an economic opportunity and a political threat. Chinas isolated internet culture has given rise to formidable domestic companies. It was once easy to dismiss Chinas local tech players as mere copycatsSina Weibo imitating Twitter, Baidu imitating Google, and so on. But now, some of these companies, notably Tencents WeChat, have become so formidable that we may soon see Western companies imitating them. In the meantime, Chinese internet users arent necessarily longing for their Western competitors.

In Russia, however, American sites like YouTube have become very powerful. The recent demonstrations were in part sparked by an online report by opposition leader and anti-corruption blogger Aleksei Navalny, who alleged that Russian President Dmitri Medvedev had amassed a fortune in yachts, mansions and estates. Navalnys video on YouTube, viewed more than 16 million times, detailed this alleged corruption. Navalny called for protests after his demands for investigating official corruption was denied by the Russian Parliament. According to Global Voices, the Russian prosecutors officerecently requested the blockingof a YouTubevideo calling on young people to rally.

Russian blogger Elia Kabanov believes that YouTube is now too big to block. I doubt the Kremlin will go there, he said. They blocked LinkedIn mostly because it was a niche site in Russia and nobody cared. And of course the government propaganda machine is using YouTube a lot, so it wouldn't make any sense to block it. If they try to take down protest announcements on platforms on YouTube, Kabanov says, new ones will appear. I really cant see the way for the Kremlin to implement the Chinese model now: Everything is too connected, their own agencies are using all these services.

Russia does have its own domestic social networks, of course. VKontakte (VK), for example, is far more influential than Facebook. Soldatov notes that VK played an unusually big role in the recent protests.But Facebook still has a devoted Russian following, especially among political activists.

No government can entirely control the flow of information. Even in China, those determined to find information can find a tool, say a virtual private network, to jump over the firewall. Russian censors will face a similar challenge. In recent years, there has been an ongoing increase in Russian use of Tor, a browser that can be used to circumvent censorship. As a 2015 Global Voices article noted, the increase in censorship closely mirrors the upward trend in interest towards Tor.

In the short term Russian street protests may fizzle out, especially as Moscow cracks down on dissent. But the story wont end there. The internet on its own will not cause a revolution in Russia, but it can be an effective tool for organization. Beijing figured this out a long time ago, but the Kremlin is learning it too late.

This article is adapted from the forthcoming Attacks on the Press: The New Face of Censorship, a book from the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Future Tense is a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Follow this link:

Russia Is Trying to Copy China's Approach to Internet Censorship - Slate Magazine

It happened! Cork conference overcomes academic censorship … – Mondoweiss

(Photo: the International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Exceptionalism and Responsibility conference)

It was originally scheduled in 2014 for the Britains Southampton University and was canceled after Zionists pressured university officials. It was briefly rescheduled once more in Southampton in response to outrage over the censorship only to be canceled once again. However, lead organizers, Oren Ben-Dor, James Bowen and George Bisharat did not give up. In the intervening months questions about the legitimacy of Israeli government actions only increased, and the original conference organizers were joined by more scholars and international legal experts determined to carry out a serious discussion about Palestine and international law.

For many of the attendees, the timing this spring couldnt have been better. The ascendancy of the right wing in Europe and the United States and the recent vociferous reactions to the UN report by Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley made the discussions all the more timely and necessary. The warm Irish welcome was such that the first two days were actually held in the atrium auditorium of Corks City Hall. The sessions were packed at both City Hall and the Sunday session at the University of Cork. Although there was security hired by conference organizers, there were no violent incidents, nor even any sustained complaints from the audience. The only sustained reactions were the enthusiastic applause outbursts whenever the courage and persistence of the conference organizers was mentioned.

Eitan Bronstein from the Israeli human rights group De-Colonizert speaks at the International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Exceptionalism and Responsibility conference. (Photo: Facebook)

Richard Falk, co-author of the recent UN report:Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid, commissioned and published by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA),was the first keynote speaker with amagisterial overview of the legal history of the state formation of Israel. Ugo Mattai from the University of Turin and Hastings College of Law was the keynote for the second day and gave an eloquent perspective on the functional limits of international law. Other presenters included Ghada Karmi, University of Exeter; Vasuki Nesiah, NYU; Anthony Lowstedt, Webster University in Vienna; anti-house demolition Activist Jeff Halper; London barrister Salma Karmi-Ayyoub; Jaffa journalist Ofra Yeshua-Lyth; Joel Kovel, NY writer and activist and many others.

The sessions, listed with titles such as Legitimacy, Self Determination and Political Zionism and Settler Colonialism: Exceptional or Typical, could have veered off into repetitive rhetoric and bitter denouncements, but the skillful panel arrangements and choice of speakers by the organizers made for thoughtful, though sometimes intense discussion and reflection.

Joel Kovel, speaking at Cork conference

Several key Jewish academics and the presentation by Buckingham Professor Geoffrey Alderman insured that pro-Israel voices were also presented. The only tense moment came when someone in the audience questioned a panelists contention that Israeli children are being taught to hate. That discussion was quickly defused by expanding to include statements about diverse cultures and the need to empathize with the other.

One of the sessions on the last day was enhanced with a variety of maps. Instead of the usual depressing images of encroaching wall construction and escalating settlement development, in this discussion the maps were shown as possible guides for potential future reconciliation and repatriation. Dr. Salman Abu-Sitta from the Land Society of Palestine showed slides of map points locating carefully researched sites of former Palestinian homes and villages placed over a map of current Israeli population centers. When viewed via his overlapping graphics, one could see that there was room on the land for ensuring space for the right to return. As an experienced civil engineer, Abu-Sitta outlined some of the planning and construction that could be created for a truly authentic peace process. His plan, he assured the audience, would cost a lot less than even one year of U.S. aid to Israel, and, as he pointed out, would only be a one-time cost, not an annual expenditure. One should be cautious about any technological solution to human problems, but Abu-Sittas positive and good humored look at what has been such an insoluble issue was refreshing and persuasive.

Eitan Bronstein Aparicio also used cartography in a positive presentation. He passed out copies of a large fold-out map which shows the many historic settlements that were destroyedbut not just Palestinian ones. His map includes Jewish and Syrian destructions also from way before 1948 until 2016. This is part of the extensive work Bronstein Aparicio has done to increase understanding of the history of land and population centers for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Throughout the conference, there were occasional Thoughts for the Day by Philip Franses, a representative from the Schumacher College. These short presentations must have been scheduled by the organizers to circumvent what was the anticipated dissension. Like the bored security personnel, these hedges against rancor were completely unnecessary at this overwhelmingly positive and hopeful conference. The expected dissension was non-existent and these programmed new age moments seemed forced and patronizing. The mantra of were all equal humans and we are the world moments seemed rather insulting.

The final panel included a presentation by Cheryl Harris, Professor ofConstitutional Law at UCLA, who began with a review of events in Ferguson, Missouri, and a short history of the Black Lives Matter movement. According to Harris, this movement has become aware of the need to connect with international struggles against racism and the global struggle for justice. Both Harris and Richard Falk adroitly, with diplomatic grace, responded to the feel good, everyones equal proscription by reminding the audience that Franses confident rhetoric did not take power into account. Yes, all lives do matter, but a togetherness chant is not going to remedy unjust situationsin Missouri or Palestine.

See the article here:

It happened! Cork conference overcomes academic censorship ... - Mondoweiss

German Proposal Threatens Censorship on Wide Array of Online Services – Center for Democracy and Technology (blog)

Anticipating federal elections in September, Germanys Minister of Justice has proposed a new law aimed at limiting the spread of hate speech and fake news on social media sites. But the proposal, called the Social Network Enforcement Bill or NetzDG, goes far beyond a mere encouragement for social media platforms to respond quickly to hoaxes and disinformation campaigns and would create massive incentives for companies to censor a broad range of speech.

The NetzDG scopes very broadly: It would apply not only to social networking sites but to any other service that enables users to exchange or share any kind of content with other users or make such content accessible to other users. That would mean that email providers such as Gmail and ProtonMail, web hosting companies such as Greenhost and 1&1, remote storage services such as Dropbox, and any other interactive website could fall within the bills reach.

Under the proposal, providers would be required to promptly remove illegal speech from their services or face fines of up to 50 million euros. NetzDG would require providers to respond to complaints about Violating Content, defined as material that violates one of 24 provisions of the German Criminal Code. These provisions cover a wide range of topics and reveal prohibitions against speech in German law that may come as a surprise to the international community, including prohibitions against defamation of the President (Sec. 90), the state, and its symbols (Sec. 90a); defamation of religions (Sec. 166); distribution of pornographic performances (Sec. 184d); and dissemination of depictions of violence (Sec. 131).

NetzDG would put online service providers in the position of a judge, requiring that they accept notifications from users about allegedly Violating Content and render a decision about whether that content violates the German Criminal Code. Providers would be required to remove obvious violations of the Code within 24 hours and resolve all other notifications within 7 days. Providers are also instructed to delete or block any copies of the Violating Content, which would require providers not only to remove content at a specified URL but to filter all content on their service.

The approach of this bill is fundamentally inconsistent with maintaining opportunities for freedom of expression and access to information online. Requiring providers to interpret the vagaries of 24 provisions of the German Criminal Code is a massive burden. Determining whether a post violates a given law is a complex question that requires deep legal expertise and analysis of relevant context, something private companies are not equipped to do, particularly at mass scale. Adding similar requirements to apply the law of every country in which these companies operate (or risk potentially bankrupting fines) would be unsustainable.

The likely response from hosts of user-generated content would be to err on the side of caution and take down any flagged content that broaches controversial subjects such as religion, foreign policy, and opinions about world leaders. And individuals inside and outside of Germany would likely have minimal access to a meaningful remedy if a provider censors their lawful speech under NetzDG.

The proposal is also completely out of sync with international standards for promoting free expression online. It has long been recognized that limiting liability for intermediaries is a key component to support a robust online speech environment. As then-Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Frank La Rue, noted in his 2011 report:

Holding intermediaries liable for the content disseminated or created by their users severely undermines the enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, because it leads to self-protective and over-broad private censorship, often without transparency and the due process of the law.

The Council of Europe has likewise cautioned against the consequences of shifting the burden to intermediaries to determine what speech is illegal, in conjunction with the report it commissioned in 2016 on comparative approaches to blocking, filtering, and takedown of content: [T]he decision on what constitutes illegal content is often delegated to private entities, which in order to avoid being held liable for transmission of illegal content may exercise excessive control over information accessible on the Internet.

Shielding intermediaries from liability for third-party content is the first of the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, a set of principles supported by more than 100 civil society organizations worldwide. The Manila Principles further caution that Intermediaries must not be required to restrict content unless an order has been issued by an independent and impartial judicial authority that has determined that the material at issue is unlawful. It is a mistake to force private companies to be judge, jury, and executioner for controversial speech.

CDT recommends that the German legislature reject this proposed measure. It clearly impinges on fundamental rights to free expression and due process. The challenges posed to our democracies by fake news, hate speech, and incitement to violence are matters of deep concern. But laws that undermine individuals due process rights and co-opt private companies into the censorship apparatus for the state are not the way to defend democratic societies. Governments must work with industry and civil society to address these problems without undermining fundamental rights and the rule of law.

See more here:

German Proposal Threatens Censorship on Wide Array of Online Services - Center for Democracy and Technology (blog)