J.R.’s Zaphne Blog News for 05-26-2018

Capitalism is not the problem

Most of them with few exceptions don’t know anything about how the Big Banks are tied to the MIC. Alas, the concept of the General Welfare is still not understood AT ALL. Bernie Sanders did a good job of corralling the thinking intellectuals on the left into Hillary ‘War Hawk’ Clinton’s slaughterhouse that countries like Haiti and Libya truly understand. Using abstractions like ‘Capitalism’, the left has been corralled into much, much worse by either well-meaning activists, or actual Imperial agents at the behest of the same bankers who got away with literally stealing entire countries’ money, lives and future, one after another after another over the last 120 years using the MIC to facilitate. For all the speculation about what is happening in Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Ukraine, what happened to Libya, for all those blaming today’s conflicts on religious differences or cultural conflicts, or the never-ending left and right ideological throw-down, friendship-ending, family-feud-starting arguments, I say all these are just distractions, because the bankers and MIC continue pillaging and killing without any resistance from you. 

Trump, today’s lead political aberration, has yet to make the right moves, despite his stated intention of passing the Glass Steagall bank separation act. Americans, Canadians, Europeans, Africans, Middle-Easterners, most of Asia and South Americans have been held hostage to the international money-laundering frauds controlled centrally by the City of London, Wall Street, the IMF and the World Bank with the MIC as their front line of offence. Capitalism abstractionism blames all privately-owned businesses, when it is in fact the Private Banking Industry which is the controlling mechanism that drives our destructive imperial and criminal war economy. The City of London is the worlds headquarters for the Private Banking Industry and Wall Street is their subsidiary. These private bankers have taken something very personal from the vast swaths of American, Canadian, European, African, South American, Middle-Eastern, Asian, and the former Soviet Union’s citizens; almost every nation on the planet has been affected by these very specific assholes for the last 100 years. 

If the U.S. were to institute bank separation now, the money, effort, and slavery to a criminal and war economy would effectively stop because the speculation of the City of London and Wall Street could no longer use YOUR hard work and savings to continue feeding their speculation and obscene profits. Resolution: Step #2. Once Glass Steagall were to be put into effect, say, through an EO by Trump, a National Bank would need to be re-instituted. Turn the abstractions into a proper form, Glass Steagall and National Banking, which begins the process of creating a new paradigm where narcissists get their just and proper treatment, where reciprocal relationships become the norm, not the exception. 

With any luck, after Glass Steagall and a National Bank are reinstated, the United States government and other narcissist victims/suppliers might just go back to the One-Party Republic-style representation it was supposed to be. 

Keywords: [“bank”,”relationship”,”economy”]
Source: http://thesaker.is/capitalism-is-not-the-problem

Feminist Ethics

Proponents of feminist care ethics, including Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings stress that traditional moral theories, principles, practices, and policies are deficient to the degree they lack, ignore, trivialize, or demean values and virtues culturally associated with women. Women at Level Three display a kind of thinking that is fully and properly feminist. Care’s contested status calls for the development of a more robust feminist ethics of care that includes men as well as women; certainly, it does not call for the rejection of care. Partly in response to the summons for an improved feminist ethics of care, Nel Noddings has developed an ethics that valorizes the virtues and values traditionally linked to women. Proponents of these schools of feminist thought maintain that the destruction of all systems, structures, institutions, and practices that create or maintain invidious power differentials between men and women is the necessary prerequisite for the creation of gender equality. 

Over the years, and largely as a result of incorporating many radical feminist ideas into their own theory and practice, Marxist/Socialist feminists have increasingly produced works like Juliet Mitchell’s Women’s Estate in which she argues that four socio-economic structures overdetermine women’s status; specifically, women’s role in production, reproduction, sexuality, and the socialization of children. Multicultural feminists affirm much of what other schools of feminist thought say about women’s status, but they fault them for not being fully attentive to the inseparability of structures and systems of gender, race, and class. Out of a women’s relational culture of caring and attentive love emerges the basis for a feminist ethic for the treatment of animals. Care-focused and status-focused feminist approaches to ethics do not impose a single normative standard on women. When a proponent of feminist ethics insists on highlighting women’s morality, she may simply be doing some remedial work-adding women’s moral experiences to a male-biased ethical tradition sorely in need of them. 

According to Jaggar, all feminist approaces to ethics seek to articulate moral critiques of actions and practices that perpetuate women’s subordination; prescribe morally justifiable ways of resisting such actions and practices; envision morally desirable alternatives for such actions and practices; and take women’s moral experience seriously, though not uncritically. Although it is crucial for feminist ethicists to emphasize, for example, how a policy that benefits one group of women might at the same time harm another group of women, it is probably a mistake for feminist ethicists not to endorse policies able to serve the most important interests of the widest range of women. 

Keywords: [“Women”,”care”,”Feminist”]
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics

JR Test Site News for 01-19-2018

Encyclopedia of Libertarianism

The Enlightenment developed those features of the modern world that most libertarians prize-liberal politics and free markets, scientific progress, and technological innovation. The Enlightenment took the intellectual revolutions of the early modern 17th century and transformed European and American society in the 18th century. The Enlightenment was the product of thousands of brilliant and hardworking individuals, yet two Englishmen are most often identified as inaugurating it: John Locke, for his work on reason, empiricism, and liberal politics; and Isaac Newton, for his work on physics and mathematics. Enlightenment intellectuals stressed man’s autonomy and his capacity for forming his own character-in contrast to the premodern emphasis on dependence and original sin. Most important, modern thinkers began to emphasize the individual, arguing that the individual’s mind is sovereign and that the individual is an end in himself-in contrast to the premodernist, feudal subordination of the individual to higher political, social, or religious authorities. If reason is a faculty of the individual, then individualism becomes crucial to our understanding of ethics. Enlightenment thinkers laid the foundations of all the major branches of science. During the Enlightenment, antislavery societies were formed in America in 1784, in England in 1787, and a year later in France; in 1791 and 1792, Olympe de Gouges’s Declaration of the Rights of Women and Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women, landmarks in the movement for women’s liberty and equality, were published. Capitalist economics is based on the principle that individuals should be left free to make their own decisions about production, consumption, and trade. Enlightenment thinkers came to be profoundly convinced that every human problem could be solved and that the human condition could be raised to new and as-yet unimagined heights. Every individual possessed the power of reason, and education could become universal and illiteracy and superstition eliminated. Not all commentators regarded the Enlightenment as unrelievably progressive. Conservatives leveled three broad criticisms-that the Enlightenment’s rationalism undermined religious faith, that the Enlightenment’s individualism undermined communal ties, and that by overemphasizing the powers of reason and individual freedom the Enlightenment led to revolutions that instituted changes of such rapidity that they undermined social stability. Socialists also offered three criticisms-that the Enlightenment’s idolatry of science and technology led to an artificial world of dehumanizing machines and gadgets; that the Enlightenment’s competitive individualism and capitalism destroyed community and led to severe inequalities; and that the combination of science, technology, and capitalism inevitably led to technocratic oppression by the haves against the have-nots. Contemporary debates over the significance of the Enlightenment thus have a threefold character-between those who see it as a threat to an essentially religious-traditionalist vision, those who see it as a threat to an essentially Left-egalitarian vision, and those who see it as the foundation of the magnificent achievements of the modern scientific and liberal-democratic world.

Keywords: [“Enlightenment”,”individual”,”reason”]
Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/enlightenment

Marriage and the Family

Marriage and the Family An Ideological Battleground An excerpt from Sexual Correctness: The Gender-Feminist Attack on Women By Wendy McElroy To the sexually correct feminist, marriage oppresses women and the family breeds patriarchy. In short, the family is the foundation of patriarchal capitalism, which gender feminists claim is the source of women’s oppression. Virtually all feminists share a belief that men and women experience the family in totally different ways. Their support….”…is deceptive and far more insidious, and has taken an enormous toll. Many women find it hard to resist the promise of a caring, equal relationship with a sympathetic man.” The truly radical assault on the family began with Kate Millett’s book Sexual Politics. “Then , there was a women’s movement that criticized…war as male ejaculation. It criticized marriage and the family as institutional crucibles of male privilege….Some criticized sex, including the institution of intercourse, as a strategy and practice in subordination.” The titles of popular feminist books from the early movement underscore the schism between gender feminists and women who chose domesticity. Gender Feminist Catharine MacKinnon describes the shift from the liberal view marriage, family and heterosexual sex: Gender feminists’ scorn for marriage and the family has not only distanced them from liberals, but from the majority of women who have chosen marriage and motherhood. Gender feminists consider marriage to be an involuntary state, in which women have the status of chattel. Engels – much quoted by Kate Millett, a pioneer of gender theory – was contemptuous of the notion that the family had subordinated women throughout history. On the family farm, it is claimed, the spheres of men’s and women’s work were indistinct. “Women have been seasoned as slaves and prostitutes…But no matter how we’re seasoned – as prostitute or as wife, which is the same thing – we’re seasoned in the patriarchal family almost exclusively to serve sexual functions.” These opinions were backed up with action. Gender feminism’s view of the family has divided women into hostile camps. Most women – however much they might want to reform marriage – do not want to abolish their husbands and children. “The earliest claims that the personal is political came from those gender feminists of the 1960s and 1970s who argued that, since the family was at the root of women’s oppression, it must be ‘smashed’.” Okin argues that the family – the so-called personal sphere – must be opened to political change, by force if necessary. What about couples who wish to maintain a more traditional marriage? What of those women who want to work out the terms of their family structure for themselves, with their husbands? Okin argues that such personal desires are irrelevant: the family is too important a social institution to be abandoned to the arbitrary wishes of the individuals involved. Regarding the issue of marriage, individualist feminism reduces to two key principles: women must retain full control of their own bodies; and, the state should have no dominion over private sexual arrangements.

Keywords: [“Women”,”Family”,”feminist”]
Source: http://www.wendymcelroy.com/sexcor/marr.html

JR Test Site News for 01-19-2018

Ending poverty: A matter of the heart

CCT has now a total of 14 ministries, 1,500 full-time servant leaders, in 15 regions, 32 provinces, 64 cities and 62 municipalities nationwide. The following facts and figures are not in the book, but I was able to cull them from CCT’s 2016 Annual Report. The Report said that CCT’s total assets at year-end 2016 stood at P1.7 billion. The same consolidated report said that CCT generated revenues amounting to P730 milion, with expenses of P594 million and a net surplus of P136 million. The biggest ministry in CCT is the Credit Cooperative which is in the microfinance business. CCT is “God’s business,” as author Ruth Callanta puts it. The collective “Poor” is- faithfully and consistently-the target of CCT, and the organization has grown to such size and magnitude simply because the organization has been unwavering in its vision and mission. The author narrates her journey bothered by this question: “In a country gifted by God with a tremendous wealth of natural, human and physical resources, why do so many Filipinos continue to be poor?”. Her reason: To focus on driving the “God centered transformative process” that, she believes, would the real solution to centuries-old poverty. The book tells the riveting story of how she began the microfinancing business with the goal of making micro-entrepreneurs out of the poorest of the poor. Initially, in 1993, CCT, according to the author, “Did microfinance work using what we thought as Grameen methodology, in addition to implementing our usual programs in community organizing and mobilization, health, Bible studies and corporate worship.” “In 2005, says the author, the UNDP project that earlier selected CCT as one microfinance institution to strengthen, yielded great results.”We reached our goal of 100,000 borrowers, two years earlier than we expected. CCT is run with all the ingredients of good management and leadership. Ruth Callanta lists some lessons she learned from ending poverty as a question of the heart. “The poor can pay for their own development.” And, surprise, “The poor can save.” She adds, “We have seen the poor free themselves from dependence on loan sharks, repair their house, send their children to school and start their own microenterprises from their savings.”

Keywords: [“CCT”,”poor”,”poverty”]
Source: http://business.inquirer.net/234516/ending-poverty-matter-heart

Why Steve Bannon wants to destroy secularism

Wed 7 Dec 2016 16.13 GMT Last modified on Fri 18 Aug 2017 20.01 BST. Just what does Steve Bannon believe? For some, his thinking can be boiled down to racism. During a 2014 conference hosted by the very conservative Human Dignity Institute at the Vatican, Bannon laid out his belief in “Traditionalism”. This type of capitalism was predicated on the Judeo-Christian tradition, which, for reasons Bannon does not explain, was adequately able to represent the culture and economic interests of the working classes. The defining feature of neoliberalism, as Bannon describes it, involves the establishment of an international class of political and corporate elites – the “Davos party” – who presumably lack the values necessary to represent the economic and cultural interest of anyone else besides themselves. It will also provide the necessary virtues, Bannon argues, to resist the global threat of “Radical Islam”. He aims to destroy the political establishment and infuse the re-established state with Judeo-Christian traditionalism. Perhaps Bannon’s apocalyptic worldview will have little influence on Trump. His repeated claim that the racial fringe will be washed out by the political revolution to come is pure naivete. More problematic is the question of where Bannon derives his understanding of traditionalism. There are plenty of traditionalists Bannon could mention who have pointed out the shortcoming of liberalism: the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre or even the theologian John Milbank come to mind. Instead he references none other than Julius Evola – one of the intellectual godfathers of European fascism who promoted a spiritual type of racism – whose reception in Russian under Putin has inspired a traditionalist movement from which Bannon believes there is much to learn. The most bothersome feature of Bannon’s talk is the fact that a Catholic group at the Vatican responded to it with enthusiasm. Their questions demonstrate that they knew Bannon’s desire to make his message receptive to rightwing populist parties. Bannon actually references the French Resistance in his talk but this is difficult to square with his fringe following. His idea of a return to traditionalism against the forces of secularism has led the faithful down the path of collaboration.

Keywords: [“Bannon”,”political”,”Judeo-Christian”]
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/07/why-steve-bannon-wants-to-destroy-secularism

Capitalism and against feminist debate

Political philosophy and feminist theory have rarely examined in detail how capitalism affects the lives of women. Ann Cudd and Nancy Holmstrom take up opposing sides of the issue, debating whether capitalism is valuable as an ideal and whether as an actually existing economic system it is good for women. In a discussion covering a broad range of social and economic issues, including unequal pay, industrial reforms and sweatshops, they examine how these and other issues relate to women and how effectively to analyze what constitutes ‘capitalism’ and ‘women’s interests’. Each author also responds to the opposing arguments, providing a thorough debate of the topics covered. The resulting volume will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy, political theory, women’s studies and global affairs. Explores capitalism through a unique perspective incorporating political philosophy and feminist theory Provides thorough arguments from each proponent and responses to those arguments Examines a broad range of economic concerns from domestic labour to international trade issues. ‘The staged debate between Cudd and Holstrom will be of particular interest to philosophically minded readers already generally familiar with the terrain. Most readers will begin their reading already having taken a side, but Cudd and Holstrom both make such convincing arguments, that generous and open readers will find in the debates a chance to revisit their own settled opinions. ‘Cudd and Holmstrom grapple with the issue of whether capitalism and women’s interests can coincide an interesting book written by two splendid analytical minds with a great passion for women’s rights this volume will be of critical interest to anyone studying feminist political philosophy. The empirical case for capitalism as an actually existing system. The theoretical explanation of capitalism’s success. Enlightened capitalism: a feminist capitalist manifesto. What is the alternative and what should feminists do now?Part III. Responses:12. She is the author of Analyzing Oppression, and co-edited Theorizing Backlash and Feminist Theory. She is the author of numerous articles on core topics in social philosophy and the editor of The Socialist Feminist Project: A Contemporary Reader in Theory and Politics.

Keywords: [“capitalism”,”feminist”,”women”]
Source: http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5731784/?site_locale=en_GB

JR Test Site News for 01-17-2018

What Is Software Testing And Its objectives In Hindi

The end of necro-capitalism – Media Diversified

Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. It now seems an apt term to describe an economic model that is collapsing and devouring itself but that given its foundational premise could have had no other end. The contemporary economic system and its theories are truly a ‘Western product,’ developed over four centuries and inextricably linked with the Enlightenment, slave trade, the colonial enterprise, Industrial Revolution and – over time and until recently – unsurpassed Western global hegemony. Western economic historians, economists, even thinkers interested in economics, on the left and right appear equally trapped in their ideological prisons. The left is tied to simplistic positions of inflated victimhood and guilt and/or dialectics of power, where horrors are inflicted by the elite, the proletariat always suffer, and multicultural hypocrisy functions as a sop for superficial colonial guilt at home just as knee-jerk anti-war rhetoric does abroad. The rightist view is equally inaccurate as it relies on ahistorical hagiographies of private enterprise, a mythical innate ability of the ‘West’ to innovate and a refusal to acknowledge not only how colonial wealth powered the Industrial Revolution but also how economic hegemony has been maintained after official decolonisation. Regardless of whether one sees the early days of mercantilism as an early stage of capitalism or not, the assumption that wealth, sourced for Europe from abroad, could be gained at relatively low cost – as proven by the very profitable Slave Trade and extraction of resources from the colonies – was established as a foundational, albeit not necessarily explicit principle of Western economic philosophy. Key philosophers throughout the 18th and 19th centuries not only benefited from the economics of slave trade and colonialism, but took it so much for granted as to not often take them into significant account. In the intervening centuries, this view has continued to underpin Western economic philosophies, implicitly but clearly building global economic structures on an unchallenged right to access resources of the non-European and premised on controlling their territories and resources in perpetuity. Once colonies could not be held formally, most former colonisers attempted an economic sleight of hand. A series of cartel-like international trade decisions were taken despite official decolonisation in order to maintain an indefinite economic hegemony. The post-war order required a combination of political and economic policies to ensure that the former colonies were maintained in poverty, incapable of challenging existing hegemonies, continuing to serve only as sources for cheap raw materials and markets. Economic and political policies are not disconnected, and some of the strongest challenges to Western economic hegemony are being posed by a combination of the two. Over the years, and despite the global economic ‘malaise’, such challenges from the emerging economies of former colonies have only grown, and in tandem with an inexorable European decline and an increasingly dysfunctional USA. However, just as the relative silence around the role of the colonial enterprise in the development of Western capitalist structures has ensured flawed analysis in the past, its continued and willful disregard ensures that contemporary analyses of capitalism retain the lacuna. For too long now, Western politicians have colluded in maintaining this flawed economic model, even when the arithmetic stopped making sense. The US, a relative newcomer to the game of empires, is struggling to maintain its economic advantage at home and abroad even as its populace grows more restive.

Keywords: [“economic”,”Western”,”trade”]
Source: https://mediadiversified.org/2017/11/07/the-end-of-necro…

Internationalizing Feminism in the 19th Century, Introduction

Between the publication of Mary Wollstonecrafts Vindication of the Rights of Women and John Stuart Mills The Subjection of Women ideas, social movements, and individual feminists migrated across land and sea, generating a powerful new context for the advancement of womens rights. In this era, the terms womens rights and womens emancipation were widely used to refer to what we today would call feminism. Women abolitionists endorsed womens rights in 1837, and in the 1830s the American Female Moral Reform Association launched their aggressive campaign against the sexual double standard and promoted womens right to control their own bodies. After visiting the Raritan Bay community in 1852, Elizabeth Cady Stanton declared, “All our talk about womens rights is mere moonshine so long as we are bound by the present social system…. Woman must ever be sacrificed in the isolated household.” Fouriers criticism of marriage as an oppressive institution for women and womens subordination in society more generally inspired extensive contemporary debate and discussion in Europe and the United States. Despite his economic radicalism, in many ways Owens views of women remained traditional, and Thompson and Wheelers Appeal went beyond him by viewing womens oppression from womens point of view. Women within the movement downplayed the free love idea and, after reading Fourier, advocated womens economic independence. In Germany the Revolution of 1848-1849 produced similar uprisings on behalf of expanded civil, political, and economic rights, and there too womens voices emerged to urge women to claim a place in public life. Regard for the American womens movement deepened in the 1850s when European and British support for feminism expanded faster among the middle classes than among socialists. Rather than constructing utopias or achieving womens equality by fundamental changes in the organization of society, most British, European and American feminists focused on improving womens legal status in society as it existed. Married womens property rights and womens right to vote became feminists main rallying points even as they continued to demand equal opportunities in education, employment, the church and the family. Historian Bonnie Anderson noted that Taylors article “Enfranchisement of Women,” referred to by speakers at almost all subsequent American womens rights conventions, was reprinted many times as a pamphlet and “Became one of the best-selling tracts of the U.S. womens rights movement.” In 1866 Bodichon launched the womens suffrage movement in England by co-founding the Womens Suffrage Committee, a group that organized a womens suffrage petition that John Stuart Mill presented to the House of Commons. The New York City convention of 1856 passed resolutions to encourage “The supporters of the cause of women… the worthy successors of Pauline Roland and Jeanne Deroin, who, in the face of imperial despotism, dare to tell the truth.” This inclusive spirit within the American womens rights movement continued in the Equal Rights Association convention of 1869, where Mathilde Anneke spoke passionately on behalf of womens right to vote. The trajectory of growth in European and British feminism carried many women activists into interaction with women in the North American movement, where a robust convention movement was collectively advocating womens rights in ways that had no precedent or parallel in Europe and Great Britain. At the same time that Annekes call for woman suffrage symbolized the integration of European feminism into the American womens rights movement, it also revealed the narrowing of the goals of European and American feminism to focus on the right to vote.

Keywords: [“Women”,”right”,”Feminist”]
Source: http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/awrm/intro.htm