The conservatives equate God and country.
The United States is the wealthiest country in the world. It attained much of that wealth by negatively exploiting its natural, God-given resources. It also gained wealth by militarily threatening other peoples such as Japan, forcing trade upon them. There was a great deal of gunboat diplomacy and saber rattling to coerce the opening of markets for greed under capitalism. It still goes on. America gained wealth by, among other things, military domination over the Central American fruit industry. One could go on and on with example after example around the globe of American business interests being forced upon local and indigenous peoples despite the real needs of those peoples. Does that sound like God is country?
The history of the development of the American capitalist empire and now global domination is long and sorted. The generally accepted viewpoint within the United States that most American foreign military involvement has been for purely noble causes is flat wrong. Military involvement has been more so directly in the interest of furthering American imperial designs: To keep any other nation or nations from gaining a position keeping America out of markets. It has always been competitive and always the cause is couched in moral terms to obfuscate the economic designs on the world. Does that sound like God is country?
Anglo-Saxon racism and bigotry has had everything to do with it. The rest of the world was seen, and is still largely seen albeit not spoken of as openly, in terms of Rudyard Kipling's phrase the "white man's burden" and especially white men of English descent. God was, and is, seen as Anglo-Saxon. Dominion was granted to the Anglo-Saxons, because their aristocrats were superior, even to the point of being rather casual about it: Smug in an aloof nearly indifferent sense.
Now, the US neoconservatives and so-called Christian right spew God and Country, forging a subconscious irrational association in the masses, feeding their libidos for war. They distort religion and history for the sake of pretexts for war-profiteering. It isn't Godly.
Neville Chamberlain, prime minister of the United Kingdom (1937-40) is seen as the great appeaser, because he is characterized as having appeased Adolf Hitler concerning Germany's annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland of the then Czechoslovakia. Hitler then invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia and Poland. Neville Chamberlain in the meantime and contrary to popular misconceptions, began building up the weak British military and he started the peacetime draft.
Of course, what is missing here is that had the victorious powers after World War I not put into place such harsh war reparations against Germany, Hitler never would have had a political platform for his rise to power. That is the lesson here and not whether appeasement was right or wrong, although peacemaking is always right.
So currently, we have American-Empire builders pointing the historical finger at the likes of Neville Chamberlain while they ignore the weightier matter of why Hitler rose to power on the back of harsh, conservative, selfish war reparations. Right now, the Iraqis are being made to pay a heavy price in the form of the US commandeering Iraq's oil reserves in the name of not appeasing terrorists, even though there are those who have made legitimate complaints about harsh US treatment going back long before the US invasion of Iraq. This is making people extremely bitter toward the US. It is setting up a long-term hatred that will have bad consequences due to the short-sighted desire for gain of certain American oil and Empire interests. Iraqis were killed or murdered in a mundanely illegal war so the US could increase what was not America's to begin with. "Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his!" (Habakkuk 2:6). Iraqi oil handed over to US oil companies by the fiat of George W. Bush amounts to amassing wealth via stolen goods: War booty. It is exactly what Habakkuk the prophet warned against. He pronounced that God said woe on those who do this. People won't forget easily. It will take a great deal of atoning to accomplish that.
Also, just as the conservatives wrongly point to Neville Chamberlain as proof of the mistake of peacemaking, they wrongly point to Winston Churchill, prime minister of the United Kingdom (1940–45; 1951–55), as the quintessential conservative and epitome of sensible militarism and empire building and defending, etc. Let's look more closely at Churchill.
Winston Churchill suggested using gas "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment." He said as follows:
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effects should be good, and it would spread a lively terror.
Now that's disgusting. Winston Churchill advocated gassing people as an experiment, because in his mind, they are uncivilized and it would terrorize them.
That's the voice of the one the conservatives hold up as their champion? Does that sound like the voice of God to you? How can they get God and Country right?
What else did Churchill say?
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
He wrote that in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920. It certainly shows that he was a conspiratorial-thinker. With the way so many Jews toss around the label of anti-Semite, why haven't we heard them complaining against Churchill-lovers?
I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people [Palestinians] by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
That's what he said to the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937.
The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.
That's what Churchill told Herbert Henry Asquith in 1910. Asquith was the prime minister of the United Kingdom and Churchill was a member of Asquith's cabinet as home secretary. Churchill was pushing to forcibly sterilize and place in labor camps the people he described in the quote above. Of course, this is one of the issues dealt with in the famous Nuremberg Trials of Nazi judges who had sanctioned sterilizations by the Nazis for exactly the same reasons of eugenics as advocated by Winston Churchill.
I will not pretend that if I had to choose between communism and Nazism, I would choose communism.
That was Churchill speaking in the British House of Commons in the fall of 1937. One must realize that he was not speaking simply of the Stalinist brand of communism or that he was referring purely to the materialistic (anti-spirit) brand of communism. He meant also the Jesus brand of small-c communism.
It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.
That's what he said about Mahatma Gandhi when Churchill was meeting with the British viceroy of India in 1931.
Mahatma is a title meaning "great soul." Gandhi was striving mightily for enlightenment and consistency. He was not advocating that the people be mendicants (living off begging). Gandhi found that the people were healed through working together on communally owned property. He believed in giving and sharing all. He practiced it in his life to the best of what he was given to understand.
We are not saying here though that we subscribe to his syncretism, as we know it allowed in non-pacifistic tendencies—a form of resistance that went beyond that advocated by Jesus.
He admired both Jesus and Mohammed. He did not see in Mohammed falling short and Mohammed's undermining Jesus. Neither did he see in Jesus the conflationary call up to the one and only path. He was closer to the kingdom then many, many however. He was closer than Churchill wasn't he?
We don't agree with Islam, as you have seen. We believe it is inconsistent. We've shown that to be the case based upon the Qur'an itself. However, we do not discount history. Neither do we discount that Islam is a religion of tradition, much as the Roman Catholics are traditionalists. We find in the history of Islam, in the tradition of Islam, there were periods when far from being savage and brutal, the Muslims were relatively peaceful. We say this, because we find no logical justification, mundane or otherwise, for people professing Christianity to be about the business of revving up war against Islam as inherently fascist religion. Islam is mistaken in that it is not a pacifist religion, but Islam has shown in history that it can exercise peaceful inclinations over warring inclinations. The people of Islam can be reached by Christians being Christians. There is no other right way.
(We must rally against) a poisoned Russia, an infected Russia of armed hordes not only smiting with bayonet and cannon, but accompanied and preceded by swarms of typhus-bearing vermin.
That's Churchill advocating biological warfare—indiscriminate, mass annihilation—very Old Testament—very antichrist.
"The choice was clearly open: crush them with vain and unstinted force, or try to give them what they want. These were the only alternatives and most people were unprepared for either. Here indeed was the Irish spectre - horrid and inexorcisable.
He wrote that in his multivolume work on WWI, The World Crisis and the Aftermath, 1923-31.
Unless you accept the frontier [Curzon line] you are out of business forever. The Russians will sweep through your country and your people will be liquidated. You are on the verge of annihilation…. In any case you are not giving up anything because the Russians are there already…. You are callous people who want to wreck Europe - you do not care about the future of Europe, you have only your own miserable interests in mind.
That is what he reportedly said at a British Embassy meeting to the Polish government in exile in London in October of 1944. He said it to them when they didn't want to agree to the new borders in Poland but more so to being swallowed up by the Soviet Union, which they were. Franklin Roosevelt had already told Stalin in Tehran, Iran in November of 1943 that Stalin may have Poland.
You see, the major powers just trade other whole nations as if they are inanimate objects. It is a chess match that each side tires of playing. They either fight, capitulate, or sign a truce, which may or may not last depending upon the power of the spirits.
To have a disagreement between the US and USSR at the end of the hot war of WWII would have resulted in additional tens of millions of deaths. The US would have used atomic weapons on the Soviets and would have had to occupy Russia to set up a workable regime.
The US has never known how to set up a workable regime. It does not know how to pacify a people, thereby freeing them. It doesn't want to. It doesn't want to redress grievances. It is too busy being moneygrubbing to be beneficent. It is too busy making money selling weapons and ammunition and doing all the other unjust things.
So far as Britain and Russia were concerned, how would it do for you to have ninety percent of Romania, for us to have ninety percent of the say in Greece, and go fifty-fifty about Yugoslavia?
That was a settlement proposal Churchill voiced to Stalin in Moscow in October of 1944.
It wasn't only a British or German notion. Some sixty-five thousand people were subjected to compulsory sterilization or eugenics practices in the US during the twentieth century. Many white Americans advocated for exterminating the Black African Americans just as they had had their expression that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" during the Indian Wars in the US. Notions of the relative value of different peoples still prevail in the world.
It isn't just an old notion—the inferiority—the less valuable. How can Condi Rice stay in the Bush-43 administration when she is a witness to the racism of the administration concerning hurricane Katrina and New Orleans when she is a black from Birmingham, Alabama? She puts herself first. That's exactly what the superrich want her to do. They want her to serve as a model for all blacks. If you do what we tell you, we'll let you become one of us: Rich and powerful. You have to be willing to forsake all that is holy however. You have to put yourself first by putting us, the superrich, first. You have to sell yourself into servitude to the immorality that is selfishness. Then you may join us to an extent—just remember to keep your place.
One can see the obvious racism and bigotry here running through Churchill to Condi Rice.
The statements above are but a few of Churchill's blatantly racist and bigoted statements. He also made more than a smattering of fascist observations, for instance admiring Benito Mussolini as an example for how to deal with Marxist Communism. He called Mussolini a "great man." He didn't mean it in the sense that one would call Bush one of the great and powerful. He meant it as a compliment.
Are we to just assign all of Churchill's comments and attitudes to the times in which Winston Churchill lived? No. We are to see them for what they were and always have been. We are to see how that conservative mentality has always been detrimental to all that is right and holy.
I was raised under a political-socialization process that told me Winston Churchill was one of the greatest leaders of all time. All the World War II British and American propaganda movies made him out to be a savior and so did the history books in the schools. They never revealed the dark side. That of course would have threatened the war-effort and would threaten the conservative agenda up to and including now. Therefore, the truth was covered up and history was revised even as it was being made. People throughout America at the very least were totally misled into thinking Churchill was someone he was not. Churchill never repented. The point is that, since it was done concerning Churchill, concerning how many others has history been revised and fabricated?
Also, the same blind eye is being turned for the sake of the war-effort against the new and perpetual enemy: Terrorists or anyone the Empire chooses to label as such. The Empire can label anyone a terrorist.
Of course, the real definition of a "terrorist" is anyone who terrorizes anyone else. People were terrorized by George W. Bush dropping bombs on them. The people were terrorized when Osama bin Laden's group sent jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. People can argue over all sorts of terms and their meanings: Who is or isn't a terrorist or asymmetrical warrior or guerilla warrior or whether or not one is deliberately targeting civilians and issues concerning so-called just wars. The truth is that it isn't a matter of whether you are on George W. Bush's side or Osama bin Laden's side. It is a matter of whether you're on Jesus's side versus George W. Bush's and Osama bin Laden's. Bush and bin Laden have more in common with each other than either has with Jesus Christ.
Don't confuse God and any status-quo country. Only the new nation, the spiritual nation, the real, liberal, Christian church, is the country of God.
According to the conservatives, we are to look the other way while many calling themselves Christians perpetrate worldly, satanic, empire building just as Hitler, Mussolini, and, yes, Churchill were such empire builders.
Still dominated by that Anglo-Saxon spirit coming out of racism and bigotry, American-Empire builders see great nations as having to exert themselves against other colonial and imperial powers by having their own colonies, whether physically occupied or economically or politically dominated. They still must have resources in the form of markets, labor, material, equipment, and infrastructure to satiate their homegrown consumers.
More and more though, the Empire is dominating via subsidiaries and proxies spread around the world and with the goal of total global conquest in mind. Also, the racism of the empire builders will be replaced by invidious discrimination against people of the spirit of holding all things in common. Those of the rabid capitalist spirit hugely oppress those of the real Christian spirit that is holding all things in common.
America's Empire started back with the creeping than furious western imperialistic expansion across the continent under what came to be called Manifest Destiny, claimed to be a right and duty under God. The natives were simply pushed out of the way and left with what was seen at the time as the dregs of the land. The land and wildlife too were raped on the path to the Pacific Ocean.
We trust you are seeing how this is not Godly. America is not God. God and country cannot rightly be said as one by the worldly Empire. When referring to the current America, it is blasphemy.
What has been called American exceptionalism is the racist notion that white America is inherently superior and deserving to run the world as proven by the unique combination of characteristics that destined it to control from coast to coast. Under this philosophy, proof of right is military victory. Then Jesus was wrong according to these people. Yet, most of them swear by Jesus.
In 1823, there was the Monroe Doctrine of president Monroe stating that the policy of the United States is that no European power or any other power really could have any territory in the Western Hemisphere. It was all America's backyard to control. This was also divinely ordained in the eyes of many just as the current push for global empire is seen as divinely ordained. What they don't understand is that it is not divinely ordained that the Empire necessarily do good. Obviously, the Empire has been doing a great deal in the name of selfishness that is far from good. The Empire is in the role of the devouring spirit and the offensive and evil punisher that will be filled with woe (torment).
The territory of Texas, part of Mexico, at first welcomed and wanted Anglo-American settlers. However, those settlers declared independence from their host country of Mexico and undertook a violent, greedy, bigoted, religious revolution resulting in 1835-36 in tearing away the huge territory of Texas (considerably larger than the current state of Texas). This was followed by the annexation in 1845 of the so-called Mexican break-away Republic of Texas by the US as a new slave state just before James K. Polk took office as US president. James K. Polk then undertook a trumped up war against Mexico, called the Mexican-American War (1846-48), for acquiring more territory by military invasion and to add additional slave states to the nation. Polk's war resulted in stealing about one-third of then Mexico under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Commodore Matthew C. Perry served Japan with an ultimatum in 1853 to open its market or face war with the US.
In 1894, the US sent in the Marines to back a coup d'Ã©tat by US businessmen that resulted in the illegal overthrow of the constitutional monarchy of ...continues... Click next page number below. [If you would like to see the full text on one page (helps with searching for text on the page), use the "No-Graphics Print Version".]
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)