Fodla32 reacted in Afghanistan: Hybrid war necessitates hybrid re-think
With the passage of time warfare has changed in method and nature. This especially applies to the late 20th century where human destiny took a dramatic turn as the forces of Faith battled a mighty force of Evil in the unforgiving lands of Afghanistan. Employing a mix of battle tactics the Mujahidin forces who were materially no match for their foes managed to subdue the mighty Soviet army and compelled it to retreat.
This series of events spelled the end of conventional warfare and redefined the concept of symmetric warfare. This war and its surprising conclusion forced military generals to rethink their strategy for dealing with Muslim masses and keeping their lands under perpetual occupations without having to face reprisals due to the fact that the Muslims had finally been given a jolt of life by the Afghan victory.
In every corner and every street whispers of Islamic victory and glimmer of hope for an oppressed civilization began circulating. People realized that defeating a far superior enemy was in fact possible but such a colossal task required a radical change in approach to warfare because the Muslims would not be able to win conventionally as they lacked both sustainable flow and manufacturing of arms as well as international backing.
At the start of the 21st century America along with all her allies began a disastrous conventional campaign against advocates of Islamic revival which quickly turned into a quagmire, or rather a quicksand, that swallow its victim the more it resisted. Thereupon the American generals began employing ‘COIN’ or Counter Insurgency strategy which basically sought to deny insurgent forces (fish) from operating within the population (pond). This strategy proved successful to a high extent as it pacified the Iraqi insurgency however this quick fix (buying loyalty of clan leaders) would also prove unsustainable because the money sources (which was used to rent the loyalty of influential clans) began drying up and the COIN strategy had failed to take into account the grievances of the population and finding lasting solutions to those grievances.
About a decade later the revolutions by the people began taking shape throughout the Arab world, once again affording Islamic forces opportunity to establish toe holds in new lands, which compelled America to again change her course in these regions. As the resources for further protracted wars and ‘nation building’ projects dwindled, America (with its mainly NATO allies) and other players including Iran and Russia opted for a far cheaper option – local proxies forces embedded with special operating forces who shall guide their efforts and provide military support or rather airstrikes to topple undesirable regimes and deny enemy forces (Sunni Islamic revival groups) territory to rule over population centers. And this highly toxic hybrid which uses a mix of conventional, proxy, psychological and propaganda warfare to blur out well defined lines between civilian and military targets to tackle different situations in different manners has now been dubbed ‘Generational Warfare’.
As ‘Generational Warfare’ of the enemy requires the molding and empowering of a new generation of secular thinkers in our homelands therefore the approach of Islamic revival forces must also change accordingly in order to confront this new enemy strategy.
The thinking behind this strategy is to deny Islamists a chance at governing through international isolation, population starvation, the destruction of basic infrastructure and targeting population centers from the air with hopes of instigating uprisings due to appalling living conditions and forcing the younger generation to shun the path of Jihad as the older leadership passes away.
Therefore the Mujahidin at the strategy-making level must begin thinking outside the box by giving serious thought to a new method of ‘hybrid governance’ that counters the enemy strategy and shatters conventional model of governance which mainly relies on international legitimacy for security as well as economic and social growth.
In order for the Islamists to succeed they must radically re-think their approach to old forms of governance. A new multi-dimensional mechanism must be enabled that will take advantage of the territory under their control and use political maneuvering to reach their goals. A method which will provide sustainable living conditions for its citizens, create job opportunities, monopolize trade to rival rates of goods and services provided by the regime, establish contacts with outside states and non-state actors and offer incentives for businessmen to invest in trade that bypasses regime tax laws which will let the people thrive and keep the flow of food, oil, gas and weaponry continue.
At the same time efforts must be exerted to stop the brain drain in their territories. The Mujahidin must create unions for doctors and engineers which function as vital organs for any government. A point of contact with this sector is critical as it can provide cheap medical care for the poor and help the Mujahidin maintain and even develop areas under their control which in turn will raise the confidence of the people in Mujahidin and encourage them to invest at locally.
This coupled with holding periodic seminars in areas of control to ideologically prepare the elders and younger generation for a protracted conflict will hopefully bring about the desired result which is the restoration of the right of Muslims to live peacefully under the shade of sublime Shariah law.
Fodla32 reacted in Taliban Statement: U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter attempting to cover the Sun with two fingers
Two months ago the U.S. Defense Secretary, Ashton Carter, came to Afghanistan on a secret trip and met with American soldiers stationed there as well as meeting with Kabul regime’s Acting Defense Minister Masoom Stanekzai.
During these meetings he apparently reiterated that America will keep its promise of supporting the Kabul regime in the long-term fight against terrorism.
He added that while the Taliban were active in some provinces of Afghanistan, however the U.S. would continue with its mission of training, supporting and assisting Kabul regime forces until they were ready to stand alone. The most surprising part of his statements were his remarks regarding the Taliban. During the visit he said that the Taliban’s existence in Afghanistan was only a temporary phenomenon.
The Defense Secretary would most assuredly have been amused by the hollowness and naivety of his remarks. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has been around for over 20 years, it has survived and thrived despite the broadest military coalition in human history assembled against it. Daily they are gaining territory and international political recognition. Viewed in this context Ashton Carter’s remarks were nothing short of attempting to cover the sun with his two fingers.
Since we are amusing ourselves with hyperboles it might be apt to recall that once when the Austrians – during their negotiations with Napoleon – offered to recognize the French Republic, he snapped back that ‘the French Republic is like the sun, only the blind fail to see it’. And so today, we are forced to remind the hapless U.S. Defense Secretary that today, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan shines like the sun and only the blind will be fooled by his naïve statements.
Has Ashton Carter forgotten that the Americans made similar statements about the Vietcong during the Vietnam War and yet – some forty years later – the Vietcong (or its successors) are very much alive and in control of their country?
The American Defense Minister forgets that the Taliban are the sons of Afghanistan. Born and raised in Afghanistan they are very much part and parcel of Afghanistan’s fabric and no matter how much he plays around with his words, they are not going anywhere.
As Bismarck once aptly stated ‘it is not by speeches that the great questions of the time are decided, but by blood and iron’. Americans – who consider themselves the very embodiment of realpolitik – have discovered a new form of waging war. They have somehow come to believe that if you fail to vanquish your enemies with swords, you may still be able to magically vanquish them by making such laughable statements.
The Islamic Emirate has not readily embraced this death and destruction for the sake of some silly ministerial posts or a share of the power. On the contrary they epitomize the nation’s hopes and aspirations for a just and peaceful government that will strive to build our beloved nation on the basis of Islamic law, social justice and national interests.
The people of Afghanistan readily sacrifice their sons to achieve this objective. And the Emirate – as the true representative of our people – will not end its peaceful and armed endeavors until we have achieved this hope of Afghanistan.
Fodla32 reacted in Taliban statement on Afghan Refugee situation
Emigration Efflux: Why are the youth fleeing Afghanistan?
Over the past few months we have seen a steady stream of Afghans leaving their country to take refuge in Europe due to the ongoing crises facing their nation.
According to media reports this year alone, approximately 800,000 Afghans left their country to head towards Europe. Of these approximately 3,000 asylum seekers drowned in the treacherous passage across the seas.
It is a point of contention whether it is in these asylum seekers’ best interests to rush to Europe and what kind of treatment they can expect there. For now we will only look the reasons that led them to choose this treacherous path.
After the formation of the National Unity Government and its dismal progress so far, the nation feels like it is in a state of paralysis. The Americans have used checks and balances to the letter in forming this government. The two heads of states – the President and the Chief Executive – have their powers so well balanced that both of them could check and annul the orders of the other. In such a mechanism it is impossible to make any progress in policy formation and implementation unless the two leaders fully agree with the proposals. Yet because the two heads of the regime are so different in outlook that it is impossible for them to agree on even the most essentials let alone the tedious policymaking required for running a functioning government.
Prior to his election, Ashraf Ghani ran a highly successful campaign based on revolutionizing the Afghan society. He promised social justice, the liberalization of the economic and government structure, opening of new markets, attracting foreign investment, progress in human rights and much more. All these convinced a large sector of the electorate who voted that Ghani would open great doors for Afghanistan. However now the ghosts of these extravagant promises have come back to haunt him.
He has not been able to fulfill any of the extravagant promises. He has found that while his promises can win him a campaign and look feasible on paper, yet in the thick of politics he is too temperamental and irresolute to enact any of them.
While his promises were inspiring, his fall from grace was even more so. His administration’s failures have dashed any hopes of progress in the minds of the ordinary citizens. As the old English idiom goes ‘the higher you throw a stone, the harder it will fall’. So now we see the hopes of the nation plummet to the abyss after they rose sky high.
The ordinary citizen, seeing the lack of a functioning government, the economic depression engulfing the state, the flight of capital, the abuses and injustices of governmental authority, the impunity of the warlords, and the complete mental inertia of the supposedly Great Intellectual see no hope for their nation.
For them even the perilous passage across the great lands of Asia or the Mediterranean look like a more profitable venture then staying to watch their country plundered by these strongmen whose motto is to fill their coffers while the going is good. At least the latest NATO decision to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2016 gives them a little more time to plunder the few remaining capital of this country.
Fodla32 reacted in 'On Women' by Arthur Schopenhauer
Essays of Schopenhauer, by Arthur Schopenhauer On Women. These few words of Jouy, Sans les femmes le commencement de notre vie seroit privé de secours, le milieu de plaisirs et la fin de consolation, more exactly express, in my opinion, the true praise of woman than Schiller’s poem, Würde der Frauen, which is the fruit of much careful thought and impressive because of its antithesis and use of contrast. The same thing is more pathetically expressed by Byron in Sardanapalus, Act i, Sc. 2:—
“The very first
Of human life must spring from woman’s breast,
Your first small words are taught you from her lips,
Your first tears quench’d by her, and your last sighs
Too often breathed out in a woman’s hearing,
When men have shrunk from the ignoble care
Of watching the last hour of him who led them.”
Both passages show the right point of view for the appreciation of women.
One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers — by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less obtrusively than man’s, without her being essentially happier or unhappier.
Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted — in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.
With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a, fulness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honourable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime — a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter. Accordingly, Nature has furnished woman, as she has the rest of her creatures, with the weapons and implements necessary for the protection of her existence and for just the length of time that they will be of service to her; so that Nature has proceeded here with her usual economy. Just as the female ant after coition loses her wings, which then become superfluous, nay, dangerous for breeding purposes, so for the most part does a woman lose her beauty after giving birth to one or two children; and probably for the same reasons.
Then again we find that young girls in their hearts regard their domestic or other affairs as secondary things, if not as a mere jest. Love, conquests, and all that these include, such as dressing, dancing, and so on, they give their serious attention.
The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husband’s lifetime, but at any rate after his death.
As soon as he has given them his earnings on which to keep house they are strengthened in this belief. Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage — that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.
It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters.
Nature has made it the calling of the young, strong, and handsome men to look after the propagation of the human race; so that the species may not degenerate. This is the firm will of Nature, and it finds its expression in the passions of women. This law surpasses all others in both age and power. Woe then to the man who sets up rights and interests in such a way as to make them stand in the way of it; for whatever he may do or say, they will, at the first significant onset, be unmercifully annihilated. For the secret, unformulated, nay, unconscious but innate moral of woman is: We are justified in deceiving those who, because they care a little for us — that is to say for the individual — imagine they have obtained rights over the species. The constitution, and consequently the welfare of the species, have been put into our hands and entrusted to our care through the medium of the next generation which proceeds from us; let us fulfil our duties conscientiously.
But women are by no means conscious of this leading principle in abstracto, they are only conscious of it in concreto, and have no other way of expressing it than in the manner in which they act when the opportunity arrives. So that their conscience does not trouble them so much as we imagine, for in the darkest depths of their hearts they are conscious that in violating their duty towards the individual they have all the better fulfilled it towards the species, whose claim upon them is infinitely greater. (A fuller explanation of this matter may be found in vol. ii., ch. 44, in my chief work, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.)
Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man; and this it is which develops that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost the normal state.
It is natural for a feeling of mere indifference to exist between men, but between women it is actual enmity. This is due perhaps to the fact that odium figulinum in the case of men, is limited to their everyday affairs, but with women embraces the whole sex; since they have only one kind of business. Even when they meet in the street, they look at each other like Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is quite evident when two women first make each other’s acquaintance that they exhibit more constraint and dissimulation than two men placed in similar circumstances. This is why an exchange of compliments between two women is much more ridiculous than between two men. Further, while a man will, as a rule, address others, even those inferior to himself, with a certain feeling of consideration and humanity, it is unbearable to see how proudly and disdainfully a lady of rank will, for the most part, behave towards one who is in a lower rank (not employed in her service) when she speaks to her. This may be because differences of rank are much more precarious with women than with us, and consequently more quickly change their line of conduct and elevate them, or because while a hundred things must be weighed in our case, there is only one to be weighed in theirs, namely, with which man they have found favour; and again, because of the one-sided nature of their vocation they stand in closer relationship to each other than men do; and so it is they try to render prominent the differences of rank.
It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.
This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.
Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value. This is most striking in regard to painting, the technique of which is as much within their reach as within ours; this is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they have not a single great painting to show, for the simple reason that they lack that objectivity of mind which is precisely what is so directly necessary in painting. They always stick to what is subjective. For this reason, ordinary women have no susceptibility for painting at all: for natura non facet saltum. And Huarte, in his book which has been famous for three hundred years, Examen de ingenios para las scienzias, contends that women do not possess the higher capacities. Individual and partial exceptions do not alter the matter; women are and remain, taken altogether, the most thorough and incurable philistines; and because of the extremely absurd arrangement which allows them to share the position and title of their husbands they are a constant stimulus to his ignoble ambitions. And further, it is because they are philistines that modern society, to which they give the tone and where they have sway, has become corrupted. As regards their position, one should be guided by Napoleon’s maxim, Les femmes n’ont pas de rang; and regarding them in other things, Chamfort says very truly: Elles sont faites pour commercer avec nos faiblesses avec notre folie, mais non avec notre raison. Il existe entre elles et les hommes des sympathies d’épiderme et très-peu de sympathies d’esprit d’âme et de caractère. They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes. When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle! The difference between the positive and negative poles, according to polarity, is not merely qualitative but also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and people of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better than we, with our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity. These ideas have only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to such an extent as to remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do anything and everything they please.
In the West, the woman, that is to say the “lady,” finds herself in a fausse position; for woman, rightly named by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honour and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and to have the same rights as he. The consequences of this fausse position are sufficiently clear. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race in Europe were assigned her natural position, and the lady-grievance got rid of, which is not only ridiculed by the whole of Asia, but would have been equally ridiculed by Greece and Rome. The result of this would be that the condition of our social, civil, and political affairs would be incalculably improved. The Salic law would be unnecessary; it would be a superfluous truism. The European lady, strictly speaking, is a creature who should not exist at all; but there ought to be housekeepers, and young girls who hope to become such; and they should be brought up not to be arrogant, but to be domesticated and submissive. It is exactly because there are ladies in Europe that women of a lower standing, that is to say, the greater majority of the sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the East. Even Lord Byron says (Letters and Papers, by Thomas Moore, vol. ii. p. 399), Thought of the state of women under the ancient Greeks — convenient enough. Present state, a remnant of the barbarism of the chivalric and feudal ages — artificial and unnatural. They ought to mind home — and be well fed and clothed — but not mixed in society. Well educated, too, in religion — but to read neither poetry nor politics — nothing but books of piety and cookery. Music — drawing — dancing — also a little gardening and ploughing now and then. I have seen them mending the roads in Epirus with good success. Why not, as well as hay-making and milking?
In our part of the world, where monogamy is in force, to marry means to halve one’s rights and to double one’s duties. When the laws granted woman the same rights as man, they should also have given her a masculine power of reason. On the contrary, just as the privileges and honours which the laws decree to women surpass what Nature has meted out to them, so is there a proportional decrease in the number of women who really share these privileges; therefore the remainder are deprived of their natural rights in so far as the others have been given more than Nature accords.
For the unnatural position of privilege which the institution of monogamy, and the laws of marriage which accompany it, assign to the woman, whereby she is regarded throughout as a full equivalent of the man, which she is not by any means, cause intelligent and prudent men to reflect a great deal before they make so great a sacrifice and consent to so unfair an arrangement. Therefore, whilst among polygamous nations every woman finds maintenance, where monogamy exists the number of married women is limited, and a countless number of women who are without support remain over; those in the upper classes vegetate as useless old maids, those in the lower are reduced to very hard work of a distasteful nature, or become prostitutes, and lead a life which is as joyless as it is void of honour. But under such circumstances they become a necessity to the masculine sex; so that their position is openly recognised as a special means for protecting from seduction those other women favoured by fate either to have found husbands, or who hope to find them. In London alone there are 80,000 prostitutes. Then what are these women who have come too quickly to this most terrible end but human sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? The women here referred to and who are placed in this wretched position are the inevitable counterbalance to the European lady, with her pretensions and arrogance. Hence polygamy is a real benefit to the female sex, taking it as a whole. And, on the other hand, there is no reason why a man whose wife suffers from chronic illness, or remains barren, or has gradually become too old for him, should not take a second. Many people become converts to Mormonism for the precise reasons that they condemn the unnatural institution of monogamy. The conferring of unnatural rights upon women has imposed unnatural duties upon them, the violation of which, however, makes them unhappy. For example, many a man thinks marriage unadvisable as far as his social standing and monetary position are concerned, unless he contracts a brilliant match. He will then wish to win a woman of his own choice under different conditions, namely, under those which will render safe her future and that of her children. Be the conditions ever so just, reasonable, and adequate, and she consents by giving up those undue privileges which marriage, as the basis of civil society, alone can bestow, she must to a certain extent lose her honour and lead a life of loneliness; since human nature makes us dependent on the opinion of others in a way that is completely out of proportion to its value. While, if the woman does not consent, she runs the risk of being compelled to marry a man she dislikes, or of shrivelling up into an old maid; for the time allotted to her to find a home is very short. In view of this side of the institution of monogamy, Thomasius’s profoundly learned treatise, de Concubinatu, is well worth reading, for it shows that, among all nations, and in all ages, down to the Lutheran Reformation, concubinage was allowed, nay, that it was an institution, in a certain measure even recognised by law and associated with no dishonour. And it held this position until the Lutheran Reformation, when it was recognised as another means for justifying the marriage of the clergy; whereupon the Catholic party did not dare to remain behindhand in the matter.
It is useless to argue about polygamy, it must be taken as a fact existing everywhere, the mere regulation of which is the problem to be solved. Where are there, then, any real monogamists? We all live, at any rate for a time, and the majority of us always, in polygamy. Consequently, as each man needs many women, nothing is more just than to let him, nay, make it incumbent upon him to provide for many women. By this means woman will be brought back to her proper and natural place as a subordinate being, and the lady, that monster of European civilisation and Christian-Teutonic stupidity, with her ridiculous claim to respect and veneration, will no longer exist; there will still be women, but no unhappy women, of whom Europe is at present full. The Mormons’ standpoint is right.
In India no woman is ever independent, but each one stands under the control of her father or her husband, or brother or son, in accordance with the law of Manu.
It is certainly a revolting idea that widows should sacrifice themselves on their husband’s dead body; but it is also revolting that the money which the husband has earned by working diligently for all his life, in the hope that he was working for his children, should be wasted on her paramours. Medium tenuere beati. The first love of a mother, as that of animals and men, is purely instinctive, and consequently ceases when the child is no longer physically helpless. After that, the first love should be reinstated by a love based on habit and reason; but this often does not appear, especially where the mother has not loved the father. The love of a father for his children is of a different nature and more sincere; it is founded on a recognition of his own inner self in the child, and is therefore metaphysical in its origin.
In almost every nation, both of the new and old world, and even among the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that one has departed from this. That the property which men have with difficulty acquired by long-continued struggling and hard work should afterwards come into the hands of women, who, in their want of reason, either squander it within a short time or otherwise waste it, is an injustice as great as it is common, and it should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. It seems to me that it would be a better arrangement if women, be they widows or daughters, only inherited the money for life secured by mortgage, but not the property itself or the capital, unless there lacked male descendants. It is men who make the money, and not women; therefore women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it nor capable of administrating it. Women should never have the free disposition of wealth, strictly so-called, which they may inherit, such as capital, houses, and estates. They need a guardian always; therefore they should not have the guardianship of their children under any circumstances whatever. The vanity of women, even if it should not be greater than that of men, has this evil in it, that it is directed on material things — that is to say, on their personal beauty and then on tinsel, pomp, and show. This is why they are in their right element in society. This it is which makes them inclined to be extravagant, especially since they possess little reasoning power. Accordingly, an ancient writer says, [Greek: Gunae to synolon esti dapanaeron physei].10 Men’s vanity, on the other hand, is often directed on non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning, courage, and the like. Aristotle explains in the Politics11 the great disadvantages which the Spartans brought upon themselves by granting too much to their women, by allowing them the right of inheritance and dowry, and a great amount of freedom; and how this contributed greatly to the fall of Sparta. May it not be that the influence of women in France, which has been increasing since Louis XIII.‘s time, was to blame for that gradual corruption of the court and government which led to the first Revolution, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the result? In any case, the false position of the female sex, so conspicuously exposed by the existence of the “lady,” is a fundamental defect in our social condition, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must extend its harmful influence in every direction. That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.
9 Let me refer to what I have said in my treatise on The Foundation of Morals, §71.
10 Brunck’s Gnomici poetae graeci v. 115.
11 Bk. I., ch. 9.
Fodla32 reacted in Learn New Testament Greek
I'm learning Ionic/Homeric Greek this year as part of my course. The textbook I'm using has excerpts from the Bible translated into the Ionic dialect, which is a little jarring because it makes it look as if it were written by Homer.
Here's an example:
ἐν ἀρχῇ ῆν λόγος, καὶ λόγος ῆν σὺν θεῷ, καὶ λόγος ῆν θεός (St. John)
Fodla32 reacted in Jewish owners recently sold Paris’s Bataclan theater, where IS killed dozens
The Bataclan theater, targeted in Friday night’s Paris terror attacks, was Jewish-owned for decades, but was sold two months ago, its former owners said.
colour me surprised...
Fodla32 reacted in "Forgive us, O’ Palestine" - Afghan Taliban
The noble land of Quds has once again been soaked in streams of blood by the Jewish tyrants, pity that the Muslim Ummah can do nothing except watch as spectators.
The usurping Jews and their Zionist allies kill and plunder, with artillery and tanks and shells from under and above, at the hands of Jewish soldiers beholding traits of savages young Muslims are torn to pieces as the Islamic world remains monitoring; a spectacle with seemingly no end, a spectacle of evil that cannot be restrained easily from the necks of the oppressed Palestinian brothers!
Forgive us O’ Palestine!
Forgive us! for feeling a deep sense of shame mentioning your noble name as we witness all kinds of injustices perpetrated against your children, feeling ourselves paralyzed. I do not understand, perhaps we live in a time where the Muslims of this day and age can do nothing but watch and weep, and when weeping we weep out of two conditions; at the lack of our spiritual conviction and at the blood soaked eyes of your children, O’ mother Aqsa, with our mouths sewn throughout the world!
Forgive us O’ Palestine!
We melt with embarrassment as the female knights of the Islamic Ummah confront the lily-levered hyenas of our time, taking their chests as armor and marching forth to battle against tanks with nothing more than stones and pebbles, shouting the cries of Takbir while wondering in amazement ‘is there no Muslim man left in this world to defend our honor?’ They have been compelled, with all their might, to rush towards the enemy lines like wolves with sharpened claws and teeth to protect their Hijab and Islamic identity.
Forgive us O’ Palestine!
We do not have any other message for your wounded children except tears and blood. Pity for the leaders of the Islamic world for failing to summon the courage for the Palestinian nation, nay but at least for the sanctity of the sacred Quds, not even a symbolic gesture to claim ‘Palestine is ours and we have an unbreakable bond with its land and sea’. Unfortunately with suspended heads and cowardly eyes they watch the Jews as onlookers, unable to reclaim their lost honor nor their looted dignity!
Forgive us O’ Palestine!
Not only is the noble Quds calling upon the Muslims to free it from the claws of the usurping Jews, nay but the sisters and mothers, children and elderly and the entire oppressed nation of Palestine cries; who’ll be our supporter, who’ll be our savior? where is Khalid? where is Umar? where is Salahuddin? where is Muhammad bin Qasim Thaqafi? however do ye know the answer of the over one billion Muslims towards these cries?
SILENCE, SILENCE, SILENCE!!!
Forgive us O’ Palestine!
That the international media broadcasts the humiliation of the Muslim children at the hands of a few Jews and mobsters as to ridicule us and explicitly declare ‘look, look at the condition of the Ummah of Muhammad – a thousand greetings be upon him – in the land of Palestine’. However it seems we have no power except to cry and watch, as if there is no other option left for us except sorrow and regret. But Allah is witness and knowledgeable O’ Palestine that the people of Islam throughout the world are tortured due to your state as they crawl into corners soaked in their tears. If you remain trapped in the net of the Muslim-phobic Jews, than know my beloved that the rest of the Muslims in all the Islamic countries are ensnared by the unending snake of the Christians (evil America), fighting and sacrificing against occupation and exploitation of this extreme enemy of Quran and religion with all their might, the supporters of these Jews…!
Forgive us O’ Palestine!
We have not many choices except to relay your oppressed voice to Allah the Lord of Majesty in our daily prayers, to forward our helplessness, weakness and shame to Allah to say ‘O Allah, all our eyes and all of our hearts are awaiting your Help and Mercy, help us against Your enemies because verily us Muslims have no helper except You’ and our only cries are; “only to Allah do we complain”
Fodla32 reacted in About the use of 'hijab' in Europe - Varg Vikernes
Fodla32 got a reaction from curious in The Glory of the Armed Proletariat - Inspiring Day in the DPRK
Fodla32 got a reaction from curious in Africans Will Remember Gaddafi For One Important Achievement
Africans Will Remember Gaddafi For One Important Achievement
Posted on 2012/11/17 by Honourable SAKA
Obama shakes hands with Gaddafi; nothing is more dangerous than the smile of a Judas. In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare writes: "There is no art to find the mind's construction in the face"
By Honourable Saka
“Gadhafi's creation of the African Investment Bank in Sirte (Libya) and the African Monetary Fund to be based in Cameroon will supplant the IMF and undermine Western economic hegemony in Africa.”
—Gerald Pereira, an executive board member of the former Tripoli-based World Mathaba
The good people of Africa will remember Gaddafi, for least one important thing he did: he laid a strong foundation for a viable and affordable telecommunication services across Africa at a time when Africans were completely disconnected from the world with exorbitant cost of telecommunication services. At least, for those of us who appreciate the value of communication in today's businesses, in keeping relationships and families alive and as the basis of our technological revolution, we believe Gaddafi gave to the African people, all it takes to keep up with today's modern life and to make it in the 21st century as a people.
Hate him or Like him Gaddafi is a true African hero. Don't get me wrong. I am not by any means suggesting that Gaddafi was a saint. He was a human being and like any human (yourselves and myself included), he had his shortfalls. The same thing can be said about Kwame Nkrumah, and many other great revolutionaries who ever lived in human history.
We are dully aware of countless of Gaddafi's shortfalls. But we cannot allow this to blindfold us completely to many of his kind gestures and the positive implications such gestures is currently having on the live of the entire African continent in our modern technological revolution.
In case you didn't know it was Gaddafi’s Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas. Because of this, Africans of today can also watch TV in HD (high definition), communicate with people anywhere in the world with high tech telecommunication satellites, browse at a reduced price,whiles enjoying the services of modern telecommunication devices at a highly reduced price.
It is an established fact that, before Gaddafi brought this revolution to the African people, telephone calls made to Africa and out of Africa were the most expensive in the entire world! Many couldn't make international calls that could last for more than 5 minutes. The bill for such a call was ridiculously expensive such that only the few filthy rich could afford.
Just imagine having brothers and sisters, parents and friends anywhere outside your country, who cannot keep a close touch with the family because of exorbitant cost of communication. I remember when mobile phone services first came to Africa, to my country (Ghana to be precise), it was too expensive to make local calls. People were not even allowed the opportunity to beep or "flash" for free. There was nothing like free calls nor free browsing.
If it was too expensive to flash/beep a local number, then how could one dare to make an international call that could last?
Those were the days when it was only a few Africans living in Europe and America who could make calls to Africa. It was completely impossible for the ordinary African to make phone calls that could last, because Africa did not have our own communication satellites and we had to rely on using the services of European satellites. Since we had no way of escape, our European masters were charging Africans too much (hundreds of millions of dollars) for this services on a yearly basis.
But today in Africa, many people including the young ones are using two or three smart phones and could make free local calls including international calls that can last over 30 minutes in most cases at reduced prices. As for the internet, it is now unlimited! Young Africans can now stay on the internet, browsing the social networks for a whole day. They're are the first to hear about breaking news from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Today Africans are using the internet and telecommunication services like never before to stay in touch with their loved ones and get connected to business opportunities around the world. Has anybody taken the pain to even consider how many Africans could enjoy this opportunity if it was not for Gaddaf's bold contribution?
It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like INTELSAT for phone conversations, including those within the same country.
An African satellite only cost a one-time payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million every year to Europe. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA and Europe only made vague promises for 14 years
Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally endogenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.
This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.
Youths in Kenya protest the murder of Muammar Gaddafi by NATO, led by Obama, an African traitor.
This is one of the major reasons why European and American leaders hated Gaddafi and were therefore looking for any opportunity to murder him at all cost. They therefore resorted to terror tactics, they tried to assassinate Gaddafi on many occasions but they failed. Like they're currently doing in Syria, these heartless European and American leaders decided to supply weapons to rebels they have trained to cause chaos in Libya whiles their dishonest media heartlessly blamed it on Gaddafi.
They sought for a UN resolution to then "go and protect civilians", when their actual hidden intention was to go and murder Gaddafi. Surprisingly many of the then African leaders, because of their greed and selfishness had secretly accepted bribes from the European and American politicians to betray Gaddafi.
Many of them were personally invited to travel to America and Europe where they held secrete meetings with the leaders, by which they agreed to at least stay quiet and allow their puppet masters have their way in Libya. They sold out Gaddafi for a few secrete dollar and Euro accounts, accounts that are loaded with the blood of their own African brothers and sisters. Gaddafi was murdered without any single one of them (with exception of President Robert Mugabe), saying a thing. Just like Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus Christ, African leaders have now regretted their actions, while the African people pay the price (with their lives) for what happened in Libya.
Tripoli before Obama led the NATO's invasion
But to us the African youth, we will not be ungrateful. We will remember Gaddafi, not because he was a saint, but because we know it was him who helped us to be able to fully enjoy the sweetness of the 21st century's unlimited telecommunications services at highly reduced prices. Any time our mobile phones shall ring, anytime we connect to the internet, we will do so with Gaddafi in our minds.
To our Libyan brothers and sisters who are still caught up in this war which is aimed at stealing your oil resources and to completely destroy Gaddafi's legacy in the county, we want to assure you that you have not been forgotten. We are still praying for peace to be restored in your country for you to enjoy the resources of your motherland.
Unfortunately, it is our leaders who have failed you. But we the African people love you and we pray for the day when you will receive all that truly belongs to you.
Long live Brother Leader, Muammar Gaddafi
Long live the Libyan Jamahiriya revolution
Long live Africa!
Note: Some expressions, facts and figures in this article were culled from the article:
"Why the West Wants Gaddafi's Fall" written by By Professor Jean-Paul Pougala
The writer is a Pan-African analyst and the founder of the Project Pan-Africa (PPA), an organization that was established to unlock the minds of the African youth to take Africa’s destiny into their hands. The PPA seeks to provide the biggest platform that will give international exposure to all hidden but exceptional talents in Africa. Please visit us at: www.projectpanafrica.org and support the project. Email me at: email@example.com
Fodla32 reacted in Quotes
“They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger… they are driven by greed, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor… They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretenses, and all of this they hail as the construction of empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace.”
― Tacitus, The Agricola and The Germania
Fodla32 reacted in Quotes
But most are deceived in the same manner as Theopompus the orator, when he blames Plato for defining everything, " For what," says he, "did none of us, before you, use the words good and /art, or did we utter them as empty sounds, without understanding what each of them meant? " Why, who tells you, Theopompus, that we had not natural ideas and pre-conceptions of each of these? But it is not possible to adapt pre-conceptions to their corre- spondent subjects, without having minutely distinguished them, and examined what is the proper subject to each." - Epictetus, The Moral Discourses
Those who are strangely hesitant to define Fascism are very like this Theopompus guy
Fodla32 got a reaction from curious in Dan Glazebrook: The Lessons of Libya - A War That Brought Total Societal Collapse
A War That Brought Total Societal Collapse The Lessons of Libyaby DAN GLAZEBROOK Three years ago, in late October 2011, the world witnessed the final defeat of the Libyan Jamahiriya – the name by which the Libyan state was known until overthrown in 2011, meaning literally the ‘state of the masses’ – in the face of a massive onslaught from N ATO, its regional allies and local collaborators.
It took seven months for the world’s most powerful military alliance – with a combined military spending of just under $1 trillion per year – to fully destroy the Jamahiriya (a state with a population the size of Wales) and it took a joint British-French-Qatari special forces operation to finally win control of the capital. In total, 10,000 strike sorties were rained down on Libya, tens of thousands killed and injured, and the country left a battleground for hundreds of warring factions, armed to the teeth with weapons either looted from state armouries or provided directly by NATO and its allies. Britain, France and the US had led a war which had effectively transformed a peaceful, prosperous African country into a textbook example of a ‘failed state’.
Yet the common image of Libya in the months and years leading up to the invasion was that of a state that had ‘come in from the cold’ and was now enjoying friendly relations with the West. Tony Blair’s famous embrace of Gaddafi in his tent in 2004 was said to have ushered in a new period of ‘rapprochement’, with Western companies rushing to do business in the oil-rich African state, and Gaddafi’s abandonment of a nuclear deterrent apparently indicative of the new spirit of trust and co-operation between Libya and the West.
Yet this image was largely a myth. Yes, sanctions were lifted and diplomatic relations restored; but this did not represent any newfound trust and friendship. Gaddafi himself never changed his opinion that the forces of old and new colonialism remained bitter enemies of African unity and independence, and for their part, the US, Britain and France continued to resent the assertiveness and independence of Libyan foreign policy under Gaddafi’s leadership. The African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG) – an elite US think tank comprising congressmen, military officers and energy industry lobbyists – warned in 2002 that the influence of “adversaries such as Libya” would only grow unless the US significantly increased its military presence on the continent. Yet, despite ‘rapprochement’, Gaddafi remained a staunch opponent of such a presence, as noted with anxiety in frequent diplomatic cables from the US Embassy. One, for example, from 2009, noted that “the presence of non-African military elements in Libya or elsewhere on the continent” was almost a “neuralgic issue” for Gaddafi. Another cable from 2008 quoted a pro-Western Libyan government official as saying that “there will be no real economic or political reform in Libya until al-Gaddafi passes from the political scene” which would “not happen while Gaddafi is alive”; hardly the image of a man bending to the will of the West. Gaddafi had clearly not been moved by the flattery towards Libya (or “appropriate deference” as another US Embassy cable put it) that was much in evidence during the period of ‘rapprochement’. Indeed, at the Arab League summit in March 2008, he
that, following the execution of Saddam Hussein, a former “close friend” of the US, “in the future, it’s going to be your turn too…Even you, the friends of America – no, I will say we, we the friends of America – America may approve of our hanging one day”. So much for a new period of trust and co-operation. Whilst business deals were being signed, Gaddafi remained implacably opposed to the US and European military presence on the continent (as well as leading the fight to reduce their economic presence) and understood well that this might cost him his life. The US too understood this, and despite their outward flattery, behind the scenes were worried and resentful.
Fodla32 got a reaction from curious in On Taxing Drug Dealers
By de facto conditions, I mean people in estates afraid to sleep at night because of junkies breaking into houses. I mean the only real employment opportunities being joining a drugs gang. I dont think you can ignore such a situation, or those who are creating it.
And why should Republicanism have a clean image? Clean in who's eyes? Revolution is nasty business. Its results that count, not the opinions of people who will never do anything anyway.
Fodla32 got a reaction from curious in On Taxing Drug Dealers
As Communists, we are not interested in bourgeois morality, which only amounts to the preservation of property relations anyway. But, we are concerned with ethics. Ethics is concerned with our relation with the true - particularly the truth of human desire.
Recently, there has been a lot of talk about Republicans taxing drug dealers. Some see this are a valid means of accumulating money for Revolutionary purposes. Others see money from drugs as being inherently corrupting. Between these two views, there seems to be three options:
a} Tax the dealers
b} Ignore them
c} Exterminate the lot of them
In practice, it is usually some combination of all three that is applied.
I think that option c} is clearly not a viable option. The massive profits to be had from drugs means that there will always be someone ready to take the risk of being caught. On the other hand, the massive alienation caused by the capitalist regime means that there will always be people wanting to buy drugs.
Ignoring them is not really an option either, as the massive profits the gangs make puts enormous de facto power in their hands. Whole areas come under the rule of these gangs. Quite apart from the misery that drug addiction causes to the addicts, the constant need for cash means that ordinary people are not safe in their homes at night - or even walking the streets during the day. Revolutionaries can't rely on the bourgeois state to control the problem. As we see, the bourgeois constabularies are more then happy to allow the dealers to ply their trade - often in return for information on Republicans.
So, that brings us to taxing the dealers. Certainly, there are a great number of disadvantages to this option. Drug money can be very corrupting. A taxation regime means constant contact with these criminal gangs, and that can have a very corrupting influence on activists. On the other hand, this is not an inevitable consequence. I think FARC in Columbia has had a close contact with the drug business for some time, but has not showed much sign of being corrupted by the contact. I think it also must be recognised that drug use has different effects in different socio-economic groups. Drugs in a Working Class area, where unemployment is rife, educational achievement is relatively low, and money is always very short, will always have a catastrophic effect, leading the the almost total collapse of the community, and the de facto rule of drug over-lords. This is not true of middle class and ruling class areas. Here society is already atomized to a huge degree. There isn't much of a community to break down. Easier access to employment and money means that drug abusers can control their habits to a much greater extent, and do not need to turn to robbing people's homes to feed their habits. I think we can say this is a general principal - drugs have very different implications for different socio-economic classes. Extending that principal, we can say that, for example, abortion under the capitalist regime has very different implications to abortion in a truely Communist society. The same can be said of immigration. We also have to recognise that while constant contact with criminal gangs can have a corrupting effect for activists, there is also a significant advantage to this contact, in that activists always know what these people are doing, know their strengths and weaknesses, and can keep them under control, and prevent them becoming de facto rulers in Ireland.
If all the above is true, would it not be a pragmatic approach to declare Working Class areas off limits for drug dealing, and enforce that on pain of death and without exception, but to tax dealing into all other socio-economic groups? That's not to say that Working Class people can't travel into middle class areas and by drugs there, but, since there is a veritable apartheid segregation of the social classes in effect in Ireland, this would probably happen a lot less than we might fear. And certainly, it would be very difficult for children and teenagers from Working Class areas to get hold of drugs.
What are your thoughts Comrades?
Fodla32 reacted in Quotes
"Generally speaking, the main hurdle in the way of peace is the continuation of oppression and occupation. If the hands of a tyrant are not held from committing cruelty, and invaders are not forced out of the country, then peace is not possible. Because peace is part of justice and justice cannot be achieved in the presence of oppression."
- Unknown Taliban Spokesman