An Afghanistan update

It's a long walk from Afghanistan to Turkey

Context 

I very much want for the people of Afghanistan whatever most of them want. I presume that includes some degree of peace, reasonable stability in everyday life, some personal respect and some prosperity with some material goods in their lives. I have been looking for how the US withdrawal is playing out. All I am seeing is bad news and worse news. Where is the good news?

The New York Times writes today about a bombing:

KABUL, Afghanistan — Powerful explosions outside a high school in Afghanistan’s capital on Saturday killed at least 50 people and wounded scores more, many of them teenage girls leaving class, in a gruesome attack that underscored fears about the nation’s future after the impending American troop withdrawal. 

In recent weeks, the Taliban’s public statements have mostly been triumphal, leaving many fearing that the insurgents will try to seize power through a bloody military victory with the American and international forces gone. 

Even if some peace deal were to be reached between the Afghan government and the Taliban, something that appears less likely each day, the result would still be that the Taliban’s brand of harsh Islamist strictures, including keeping girls out of school, could again become the mainstream. 

The NYT wrote yesterday about how Afghan security forces are doing, or not doing:

KABUL — The Taliban has carried out a string of attacks near vulnerable provincial capitals across Afghanistan since May 1, a marked escalation in violence that officials say is a sign the group is testing for defensive weak points and assessing the government’s capacity to provide air support as U.S. and NATO forces withdraw.

A doctor in Helmand who watched the Taliban advance from Lashkar Gah said, “All the Taliban fighters did was stomp their feet, as if they were just kicking the dust off their boots,” before police abandoned some 10 checkpoints on the city’s edges. The doctor spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals.

The Afghan Defense Ministry did not respond to requests for comment.

Three days ago, the NYT wrote about the exodus of refugees from Afghanistan to avoid being caught and killed by the Taliban:

ISTANBUL, Turkey — In a derelict house in one of the oldest quarters of Istanbul, a group of Afghan migrants were welcoming new arrivals — two teenagers who had survived the perilous two-month journey on the migrant trail from Afghanistan.

“Wherever there is money and food,” said Idris, 18, in April. “Wherever we can earn money to send back to our families who are hungry, we will stay.” He and several other Afghans gave only one name, since they were in the country without documentation.

More than 200,000 Afghans were caught entering Turkey illegally in 2019, many of whom were deported back to Afghanistan.

Afghans are the lowest in the pecking order of casual laborers who fill this teeming city of 20 million. As many as 200,000 are living in Turkey, according to refugee officials.

“The Taliban were getting closer to our village. That was the main reason,” said Najibullah Qarqin, 25, who worked as an electrician for four years on U.S. bases and diplomatic compounds. “This is why I am here, because of security.”  

Afghans who worked for years on American bases in Afghanistan live in 

Turkey in fear of deportation

Clothes hanging out to dry on a burnt-out upper floor 

of a derelict building where more than 20 Afghan refugees live

-- the refugees tend to live packed into condemned housing in Istanbul

Afghan refugees' living quarters

One can only wonder how many of our former allies will be caught and killed and how many the US will take in before they are caught and killed. Maybe we will never know. Maybe all we will get is lies from our government, the Taliban and the Afghan government (as long as it lasts).

Beyond the limit of free speech: Incitement to violence

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.https://t.co/CBpE1I6j8Y

— Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) January 8, 2021

In an essay posted on Jan. 12, 2021, Professor Katharine Gelber, Head of the School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland, Australia argued that Facebook banning the ex-president from that platform was not censorship. Instead, it amounted to blocking incitement. Her essay is entitled Incitement, not censorship: Why Donald Trump’s suspension from Twitter is not a “free speech” issue:

I have spent a good deal of my professional life examining the nature and limits of free speech, and the regulation of harmful speech. It goes without saying that I’ve been watching events unfold in the United States with a keen sense of dismay. Since his defeat in last year’s US presidential election, Donald Trump has used social media to spread rumours concerning wide-spread voter fraud, promulgate wild conspiracy theories, and inflame hostility on the part of his followers — all culminating in a speech last week, during which the President incited anti-democratic mob violence at the US Capitol.

The descent into political violence in the United States is seriously concerning. But I have also been concerned at the media coverage of the Coalition’s response in Australia to the decision by Twitter to suspend Donald Trump’s account permanently, on the grounds that it violates their content standards by inciting violence and because his use of their platform poses the “risk of further incitement of violence.”

The decision taken by Twitter to “permanently suspend” Donald Trump’s account, and by other platforms to ban any online activity from the outgoing President until Inauguration Day, is being presented as a “free speech” issue. These measures are being covered as though Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or YouTube were somehow a little too eager to kick people off their platforms, or too willing to exercise forms of censorship.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is worth remembering that Facebook, Twitter, and Google have faced — and, indeed, for the most part resisted — calls for more than a decade to take decisive action against harmful speech on their platforms. They now have policies enabling the removal of content that violates their standards, but there is much to be done to improve the accuracy of their content removal, consistency in the application of their standards, and their ability to detect harmful speech online.

Harmful speech can take many forms. The most recent example is incitement to violence, but others include cyberstalking, doxxing, misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech. While it is appropriate that these social media companies have now taken the measures they have against Donald Trump, it is nonetheless sobering to consider that it took an eruption of mob violence against the central institution of American democracy to steel their resolve.

In other words, to reduce what has transpired over the past week to a debate over “free speech” or “censorship” is spectacularly to miss the point. The key issue is the incitement of violence — and that has received far too little attention in political commentary or media coverage. No free speech argument has ever suggested that its protections extend to the incitement of violence. There is no free speech protection for this speech, because it is evidently, immediately, and virulently harmful. (emphasis added)

One question that pops right up is what about harmful speech that is less evidently, immediately, and virulently harmful? What about decades of radical right disinformation, slanders, unwarranted fear mongering, crackpot conspiracy theory and other forms of dark free speech? All of that was a necessary prelude that paved the way for the ex-president to rise as fast and go as far as he did in damaging this country and its government and society.

A corrupted federal commission protects the criminal ex-president from prosecution

The Federal Election commission has three Republicans and three Democratic commissioners. The commission decided in a closed-door meeting in February to not prosecute the ex-president. Two Republican commissioners voted to dismiss the case while two Democratic commissioners voted to move forward. There was one absence and one Republican recusal. The democratic "absence" is inexcusable.

Once again, our political system failed to vindicate and defend the rule of law and the American people.

The New York Times writes:

The Federal Election Commission said on Thursday that it had formally dropped a case looking into whether former President Donald J. Trump violated election law with a payment of $130,000 shortly before the 2016 election to a pornographic-film actress by his personal lawyer at the time, Michael D. Cohen.

The payment was never reported on Mr. Trump’s campaign filings. Mr. Cohen would go on to say that Mr. Trump had directed him to arrange payments to two women during the 2016 race, and would apologize for his involvement in a hush-money scandal. Mr. Cohen was sentenced to prison for breaking campaign finance laws, tax evasion and lying to Congress.

“The hush money payment was done at the direction of and for the benefit of Donald J. Trump,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times. “Like me, Trump should have been found guilty. How the F.E.C. committee could rule any other way is confounding.”

The Republican commissioners who voted not to proceed with an investigation, Trey Trainor and Sean Cooksey, said that pursuing the case was “not the best use of agency resources,” that “the public record is complete” already and that Mr. Cohen had already been punished.

“We voted to dismiss these matters as an exercise of our prosecutorial discretion,” Mr. Cooksey and Mr. Trainor wrote.

Note the idiotic excuses the republicans gave, prosecuting the ex-president is “not the best use of agency resources,” that “the public record is complete.” That is absolute incoherent, partisan traitor republican bullshit. The "absence" of the democrat for something this important is also treason. 

This exemplifies once again why I want regime change without republicans or democrats as major players. They had many chances to rule honestly and competently. They failed dismally and continue to fail dismally. The rule of law and civil liberties are under ferocious radical right attack and no major defense is on the horizon. The law is crumbling in the face of treasonous republican fascism and corruption and treasonous democratic complicity, dereliction of duty, incompetence and stupidity. 

Once again, the American people and the rule of law are screwed by our corrupt, treasonous ex-president, fascist republican thugs and clueless incompetent democrats.

Regarding the origin and development of American White Christian Nationalism

What is happening with the modern American radical right is complex. At least to me, the radical right movement is quite confusing. IMO, it has become openly authoritarian-autocratic, anti-democratic, anti-civil liberties and anti-rule of law. It is infused with what I see as a significant amount of racial and other sources of bigotry and arguably a lot of outright racism and racial hate. Christian nationalism seems to be an important ideology or mindset that is in play among many (most?) people on the radical right.

The following is a easy to read essay about the nature and origins of White Christian Nationalism and how it morphed over time into American White Christian Nationalism. The author, Philip Gorski, is a professor of sociology and religious studies at Yale University. He has written two books, American Covenant: A History of Civil Religion from the Puritans to the Present and The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Growth of State Power in Early Modern Europe, so he seems to be knowledgeable about American history and religion. Gorski writes:

As one observer noted, the January 6 protesters seemed a motley crew: “country club Republicans, well-dressed social conservatives, and white Evangelicals in Jesus caps…shoulder to shoulder with QAnon cultists, Second Amendment cosplay commandos, and doughy, hardcore white nationalists.” One group erected a giant cross, another a wooden gallows. Someone waved a “Jesus Saves” banner, while another sported a “Camp Auschwitz” hoodie.

But the closer you look, the murkier things become. Christians waved Trump flags. The “Proud Boys” kneeled and prayed. One man, decked out as a cosplay crusader, clutched a large leather Bible to his chest with skeleton gloves. What looked like apples and oranges turned out to be a fruit cocktail: white Christian nationalism.

White Christian nationalism (WCN) is, first of all, a story about America. It says: America was founded as a Christian nation, by (white) Christians; and its laws and institutions are based on “Biblical” (that is, Protestant) Christianity. This much is certain, though: America is divinely favored. Whence its enormous wealth and power. In exchange for these blessings, America has been given a mission: to spread religion, freedom, and civilization—by force, if necessary. But that mission is endangered by the growing presence of non-whites, non-Christians, and non-Americans on American soil. White Christians must therefore “take back the country,” their country.

WCN is not just a story. It is also a political vision. Violence and racial purity are central to that vision. As Samuel Perry and Andrew Whitehead have shown, white Christian nationalists tend to favor a strong military and capital punishment and oppose gun control. WCN is thus strongly correlated with opposition to interracial marriage, non-white immigration, and affirmative action.

To understand how American Christianity became so entangled with racism and violence, we first have to trace it back to its scriptural roots. Those roots are dual. It turns out that WCN is not just one story, but two. The first is a promised land story. The New England Puritans saw themselves as the heirs of the biblical Israelites. They imagined themselves as a “chosen people,” and they came to see the “new world” as their “promised land.” And as their relationship with the natives shifted from curiosity to hostility, they began to see the Indians as “Canaanites,” who had to be conquered.

The second story is an end times story. Most Christian theologians read Revelation in allegorical terms, as a depiction of the moral struggles within the believer’s heart. But some interpreted the text more literally, as a description of bloody struggles to come. That is how many Puritan radicals read it, and they exported those ideas to New England.

The two stories gradually fused together during the Puritans’ wars with the Indians. Cotton Mather came to believe that the New World would be the central battlefield in the final struggle between good and evil. He placed himself and his brethren on the side of the good, and the Catholic French and their native allies on the side of evil. He likened the Indians to demons and viewed the killing of Indians as a blood sacrifice to an angry God. It was war that welded Protestantism and Englishness together in the New World.

But how did Protestantism and Englishness get entangled with whiteness? To answer that question, we need to shift our focus to Virginia. There, and elsewhere, the most common justification for the enslavement of kidnapped Indians and Africans was that they were “heathens.” But this argument broke down in the late-seventeenth century as some enslaved persons converted to Christianity and some white Christians sought to evangelize them. The problem was initially resolved by shifting the legal basis of slavery from religion to color: “Blacks” could be slaves; “whites” could not. It was then more fully resolved by creating a new theological basis for slavery. Perhaps the most influential was the “Curse of Ham.” Blacks were the descendants of Noah’s son, Ham, the argument went, and their color and enslavement were a result of the curse that Noah had called down on head.

It would be another century before WCN became American. Until the American Revolution, most colonists still considered themselves English. It was only after the Revolution that they began to think of themselves as “American.” Until that time, the term “Americans” was more often used to refer to the native peoples. So, one way that (white) Americans set themselves apart from their British “cousins” was by claiming to resemble (native) Americans. The American (man) was a little more savage, a little more violent than his English forebears. He was, in a sense, the true heir of the Indian who was (supposedly) disappearing, and the true inhabitant of the “frontier.” The white American had a trace of the red American in him.

WCN is what linguist George Lakoff calls a “frame.” A frame is like a bare-bones movie script. It “has roles (like a cast of characters), relations between the roles, and scenarios carried out by those playing the roles.” Like a movie, it can be made and remade, with new actors and modified scenarios. The “frontiersman” becomes an “Indian fighter” and then a “cowboy.” The scene shifts from Appalachia to Kentucky to Wyoming.

Trumpism is, among other things, the latest version of the WCN frame. Echoing the promised land story, Trump says he will “take back the country” from the outsiders and invaders who have taken control—immigrants and secularists, Muslims and Mexicans—and then restore it to its rightful owners: “real” (that is, white, Christian) Americans. Echoing the end times story, Trump paints the world in terms of us and them, good and evil, and hints at violent struggles to come. The first such struggle took place on January 6, 2021. It will not, I fear, be the last.