The Christian Right's Pervasive Underlying Anti-Semitism

I'm sure that we've all heard about Islamic anti-semitism. In fact, unfortunately the Islamic world seems to have picked up where Christian Europe has left off. But fewer people seem to realise the anti-semitism promoted by a number of Christian right groups. http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9405/antisemitism.html If this expose creates a backlash for me, then so be it. Ignorance, and intolerance, are things every decent good natured person should stand up against. And I myself have noticed how the rhetorical charecteristics of key Christian right figures, and groups, namely Christian Reconstructionists/dominionists, resembles, and is even at times identical to the propoganda of Nazis. The only real subtle difference between the dominion theologians as a whole, and more specificly Christian Identity, and/or Kinism, is that the former only seek Christian religious supremacy, while the latter also seeks white racial supremacy. People can rest assured, or if they are the above mentioned enemies of democratic freedom, can be forewarned, that I shall continue to both address, and counter, the extremism of the ultra-right. Just as people in the west like to call on both current, and former, adherents of Islam to denounce the excesses of their religious background, so shall I, as an ex-christian denounce the excesses within my former faith. All those whom sincerely love freedom should use their recognised legal civil liberties to counter those who would threaten to undermine a free secular society, just as ironicly enough, the fascists, and various theocratic fundamentalists use the rights they are afforded, in order to challenge the very foundation of civil society. They are like a cancer upon the body politic. We should not allow the enemies to get the better of us, by using our freedoms against us. Amongst the rights we should exercise is our right to bear arms. I do not care all that much which weapons you choose to own, and operate, whatever the established laws in your country/place of residence permits you to have, as a civilian. I myself prefer to use a crossbow, as it is silent, so you have the benefit of stealth, if and when you go to take out a target, in combat. Also besides not having shell shock, you also avoid the blow back, which you get from guns. But I certainly don't begrudge gun owners, as long as they are both law abiding, and safety conscious. To those whom might over react to my advocacy of armed preparedness, I am refering specificly to the perverbial collapse of society itself, comparable to what Somalia has experienced. I am not trying to endorse the initiation of force, eventhough it might be justified if we were to adhere to the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive warfare. But I do not adhere to this notion. Instead I abide by the "non-aggression principle". It's just that I do not wish for the people to be caught unawares, if like during the days of the Weimar Republic, we might need to form resistance groups, such as either the Reichsbanner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsbanner_Schwarz-Rot-Gold , German Iron Front http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front, or the Red Front http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotfrontk%C3%A4mpferbund, depnding upon your exact political persuasion. We might even have to stage an armed revolutionary insurection, such as is the film, and graphic novel series, "V for Vendetta" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta. Who says that survivalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalism is only for rightists? I assert that survivalism, including various forms of self defense, and combat, should be considered a fundamental part of a D.I.Y. lifestyle approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIY_ethic. The most important thing is to become fully aware of the nature of the enemy, and their tactics, in order to be enabled to counteractively respond accordingly. And, as an apostate/defector from the Christian right, and it's diverse movements, and subcultures, I feel particularly qualified to take up the task of taking on the potentional threats, and problems, caused by it's pernicious presence. P.S. No I'm not simply trying to lump together everyone in the broad category of the political right. I know that they can range from old right palaeo-conservatives to new right neoconservatives, and also various strains of right-libertarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism. I, as a left-libertarian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism oppose them all, to some degree. However, I recognise that the approach used in opposition should vary depending on the exact situation presented by the nature of the political position. Anarcho-capitalists, a type of right-libertarian, share my commitment to non-violent political action, and so are not regarded by me as being an enemy, in the same manner that I regard the theonomists. I mean their ideology I find to be rather pathetic, and therefore unfeasible in practice, but they are still friendly towards freedom.

People debate gun control measures, in the aftermath of shootings.

I've noticed that lately various people, from both sides of this issue, are concerning themselves with gun control, since the senseless, tragic, killings, by such persons as Adam Lamza, and James Holmes. I myself have mixed views, on this subject, as one might imagine. First off, here are some posts I'd made about it, on my Facebook page, which in the interests of annonomity, I've made private, in regards to this blog. 

"And now some words from Fm. Pres. James Madison, on the second amendment, and gun control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ume73vmDqQQ Also thses articles from "The Daily Beast" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-rights-adv...ocates-should-fear-history-of-second-amendment.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-control-foes-misunderstand-the-intent-of-the-second-amendment.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/how-we-can-regulate-guns-using-the-second-amendment.html. The framers of the Constitution were actually concerned about such incidents as the "Whiskey Rebellion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion , and also "Shay's Rebellion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion. And so the Federalists crafted the Constitution, in order to strengthen the powers of government." "

I just recently read posts on Facebook, made by people who feel that school shootings such as what took place in Conn. , are a fairly recent developement, and even is a sign of moral decline. Well, as a student of History, just let me tell ...you that they are wrong. http://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings-united-states Murders took place back in the "good old days" too. And even if the would be shooters were to hear that murder is ungodly, and/or unjust, as I'm sure they all had, at some point in their lives, human nature with it's base impulses would still remain the same. There is a good story which illustrates the existance of both yetzer ha ra (bad nature), and the yetzer ha tov (good nature) http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/TwoWolves-Cherokee.html. So that's my commentary on this tragedy, seeming as just about every other person on Facebook has already posted something on it. P.S. Sometimes, as I well know, from on-line aquaintance, someone might react violently in adverse response to religious upbringing, which he deems to have been oppressive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings. So not all religions are positive. Some might actually be repressive, if not abusive, cults. But as long as persons have free will, and we all do, and there's no one who can completely suppress that, these sorts of things might continue to happen. For man has ill will at times, not just natural virtue. So we'll all just have to cope with it the best we can, and try to make the best of it."

  Now with that being said, I do respect the general right of the people collectively to bear arms, in defense of both life, and liberty. In regards to a perverbial future anarchic society, I like to imagine that the possession, and use of firearms will be confined to a citizen's militia. Sort of like what has been had in countries such as both present day Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland , and the former Czechoslavokia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Militias_(Czechoslovakia). I am of the opinion that as long as the guns are all registered,  it's owners liscenced, and/or authorised to possess them, and are operated safely, and away from all residential areas, the right to bear arms should not cause any undue amount of violent crime. Now I know that on one end, there will be anarcho-pacifists who might contend that all weapons are invalid, and that we should all just take the high road by not using violence for any purpose. There are actually anarchist based intentional communities, such as most notably "Christiania" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania#The_community. And on the other end, there will be anarchists whom feel that there should be a recognised indivisual right to bear arms, without any preconditions. As to the former, while I respect the right to particular communities to make their own standards concerning conduct, in accordance with self determination, I myself advocate the principle of non-aggression, rather than non-resistance. I feel that the lives of good natured persons should be considered to be of more value than of any aggressive adversary that might attack. And in regards to the latter, would you seriously want to afford the same right to bear all manner of weapon to such ilk as neofascists, islamists, and/or dominionists? Because I sure don't. I feel that the common good, and defense, of the people should take precedence over the permissive liberties of various persons. But of course, indivisual intentional communities may rightly set their own standards in dealing with the issue of weapons possession, and use.

Affirmative Action is Being Challenged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/world/asia/indias-rich-benefit-from-schools-affirmative-action.html Now here is a topic which might set off heated controversy. What happens when people of darker "varna" (colour) actually prosper over those who are lighter complected? I myself feel that it's a shame that there aren't enough places both educationally, and vocationally, for all meritous persons to have opportunity. And I can also see how a priveledged class might develope amongst those peoples who benefit from affirmative action, in the higher education. Like for instance, let's say that a lower caste student marries another student, whether or not the other student is of the same caste. Their children would be doubly favoured, in regards to admission to that colledge, both as a lower caste, and as a child of an alumnus. Where as higher caste, yet lower class, persons might have a harder time being accepted. Personally I feel that affirmative action was possibly developed in order to try to prevent the various peoples from joining together, on order to do away with the verry system which pits different races against each other, in a competitive rivalry. I feel that capitalism thrives on competition, not only between companies, but between castes. It favours aristocracy over meritocracy. And so therefore, in my opinion, is incompatible with democracy.

Young Anarchists Go To Trial Due to Possession of Books.

http://thesoundandnoise.com/2012/09/14/young-persons-called-to-private-grand-jury-for-owning-books/ I'd read of this issue, and addressed it, on my blog. http://libertariansocialist.blogspot.com/2012/08/police-go-on-fishing-expedition-based.html I think that it's a horrid shame that this has gone to trial. I also think that the federal government should specify whom the enemy is. During the Civil War, in which President Lincoln assumed emergency powers, such as suspension of habeas corpus, it was only applied against those deemed to be Confederates. Not abolitionists, of whom a number took part in John Brown's raid, and were in violation of the Fugative Slave Act, which was still in effect, at the time, and not even socialists, whether they be Marxian, or Fourierist. Anarchists have been a presence in American thought, from earliest times. Including men such as Josiah Warren http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Warren , Lysander Spooner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner , and women such as Voltairine de Cleyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltairine_de_Cleyre. After hearing of this, I will never let any police into my personal place of residence, not without a warrant anyway. I have "Understanding Power", by Noam Chomsky, and "The Radical Reader". I wonder if perhaps that deputy sheriff who came straight to my property, after someone reported hearing automatic gunfire, might have been hoping to have been permitted to look into my trailer, under the pretext of looking for weapons. Growing up, as an evangelical Christian, I was brought up to prepare myself for the event that a tyranical regime might come looking for Bibles, if the practice of the Christian religion were to become prohibited. But now that I've become a libertarian socialist, I might have to fear them coming after me due to my anarchist literature, and views. I never seriously imagined that the American authorities would ever abuse their power like this though. Not this blatantly, and not in my lifetime anyway.

The Familiy Research Council's Bitterness is Ironic

You might have heard of the attempted fire arm attack upon the offices of the Family Research Council. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/us/dc-shooting/index.html While I personally feel that it is unethical to initiate violent force, in any conflict, I also sincerely believe that one should only be blamed for the actions one does, not the opinions one holds. The Southern Poverty Law Center, is now being faulted by the head of the FRC, for daring to call them out on their defamation, if not outright intimidation, of such people as gays, and lesbians. Here is a statement, by the SPLC, in response to these allegations. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-family-research-council-license-to-kill-claim-outrageous Also, not only does the SPLC not condone violence, it is selective in whom it deems to be a hate group. An organization has to be more than just critical of others;it must also be hostile, and/or wantonly hateful. Just merely being a conservative religious group, with traditionalist values, will not qualify them as being a hate group, based upon SPLC criteria. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-s-anti-gay-hate-list-compiled-with-diligence-and-clear-standards I just want to end by making these points. If an attack were commited against a pro-gay group, Lambda for instance, and officials from this group were to blame the Family Research Council for provoking it, I imagine that the same man whom now is trying to lambast the SPLC for their stand, would spread alarm about the possibility of public repression of free expression. Look, it should be apparant that despotic, demagogic, theonomic, entities do not value personal freedom, and tolerance. They just simply try to prey upon the sentiments of naive indivisuals who do.

In London Police SEarched For, And Seized, Anti-Olympic Materials

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/21/olympics2012-civil-liberties

 But this goes against both the 1st, and 4th, amendments of the Constitution! Oh yeah, that's right, the Constitution does not apply in the U.K. Thanks for reminding me of why America broke away. Though, as I posted before, http://

www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-raid-anarchist-literature-portland-seattle/6267/#more-6267 , the police have been doing similar in certain areas of the country, here in U.S.A. The supposed land of the free, and home of the brave. Yeah right! More like land of rising fascism, and home of the slave. Which is why, along side demonstrations, and non-violent direct actions, I support voting for Jill Stein. As does the Socialist Alternative http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=1885, which is an affiliate of the Committee for a Worker's International. Though the CWI is not really a specificly libertarian socialist organization. in fact, for what it's worth, they're Trotskyist. But my one friend is a member, and he seems cool anyway.

Police Go On Fishing Expedition, Based Upon Political Prejudices

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-raid-anarchist-literature-portland-seattle/6267/#more-6267

 Now this is completely invalid. What they're investigating would constitute a "thought crime". And also, some of the items searched for, and seized, are not intrinsticly political. Black clothing, seriously? So what, they're going after goths now? Citizens of this supposedly free country should feel safe to pursue ideas, and express their opinions, without fearing repression from the police forces. Persons should only be investigated, and subsequently incarcerated, upon reasonable indication of terrorist, and/or otherwise criminal activity. In other words, for what one does, not how one feels. If these authorities are genuinely concerned about anti-government sentiment, such abuses of political power will only heighten it. I think that even those who are not in any way anarchistic still might have reason to be concerned about this. I mean, what if the state starts to turn it's attention to other people who they might possibly find to be potentionally dangerous. For instance political groups that are old right, as well as those that are left.. Are perhaps the powers that be might come looking for religious literature even, such as Qurans, or even Bibles. Such guilt be association, directed at undefined enemies, endangers all persons who have strong dissent about any issue, regardless of ideology. As Pastor Martin Niemöller once said, "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me."