Wednesday, December 13, 2006
We've written about Cuba and Batista and dictatorship and the Mob and CIA and all the corruption and greed and violence and lust against the Cuban people.
Little is known or understood about the Cuban revolution. We, of course, are opposed to violence as a means for change. Nevertheless, much of what Fidel Castro has done has been mischaracterized.
We don't wish to reformat the debate about Cuba with an eye to excusing Fidel's violent reaction to the fascism and decadence the revolutionaries faced in Batista and the Mob. No, what we are doing is saying that the truth must be sorted out from the fiction.
The status quo in Cuba at the time of the revolution was terrible for the poor and low-wage earners. The general welfare was not considered. The mass of the people was seen as an inferior lot fit solely for being human machines for the production of wealth going to the capitalist gangsters in the Mob and CIA and elsewhere in the US and in Cuba.
In fact, it was the US that started the cycle of escalation of problems with the Fidel regime when the US Treasury pressured US oil interests still in Cuba to refuse to refine crude oil coming from Soviet Russia. The economic war ratcheted up from that starting place.
It was an unnecessary, greedy thing for the US to do. It put unnecessary pressure on the Cuban economy. One thing led to another, and Castro nationalized the utility companies, the telephone service, the oil industry, the banks, and symbolically the United Fruit Company, etc.
Socially, as we know, he did for the people what the US could have done long before. He placed them first. He served their needs. Had he used non-violent means and been moved by God, those same efforts would constitute saintliness.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
What a snow job those in control of the history books have done concerning Fidel Castro and Cuba.
Let us preface by saying that Fidel Castro was not, and apparently still is not, a Christian.
We totally disagree with Fidel Castro's coercive dictatorship and suppression of the press.
The same may be said of the FARC (Forces Armed Revolutionary of Colombia, which in English is turned around to Revolutionary Armed Forces) and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and many others who think of themselves as freedom fighters. Coercion is the wrong path.
Certainly the US system has treated these people no better than king George III and the British Empire treated the American colonies at the time.
What is the difference between Thomas Jefferson and Hugo Chavez? There are differences, but are they farther apart than Jefferson and Bush?
It isn't difficult to discern that of the three, Chavez had the people's interest at hearth the most and Bush the least.
Certainly Jefferson would have sided with the Populism of Chavez over the elitism of Bush. This, of course, doesn't make any of them wholly correct. It does though point out the degree to which the American people have been duped by the oligarchy.
"But," they will say. But he is a Communist Party person, of course, that notion conjuring up all the programming and conditioning of the American political-socialization brainwashing of the Cold War era, that process enforcing the notion that Castro would, therefore, have to have been, and still is, in the mold of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.
When the United States, through the power-elites' CIA, funded, armed, trained, planned, and backed the Cuban-exile's invasion of Cuba, called the Bay of Pigs invasion, of April 17, 1961, in which some one thousand, five hundred exiles were defeated, the CIA had said that the Cuban people would rise up against the "dictator" Castro. On the contrary, the Cuban people rallied behind Castro and the invasion was repelled. It was a vote of confidence by the vast majority of Cubans in Castro.
Those people remembered well the real dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. They had fresh memories of the brutality, the abject poverty, the executions, etc. They remembered the US Mafia in control of the houses of sin, the gambling houses, the drug trafficking, the prostitution, the Mafia coming and going with impunity because it paid off Batista for this so-called right and privileged.
There was Castro, who had overthrown the dictator and had instituted social and economic reforms and had not made a move to enrich himself, his family, or his close circle of supporters. They saw the egalitarian health and educational services he put into place.
Yet, here was the United States backing the people who had been against all those moves toward fairness and who wanted to bring back the bad old days. They weighed which version of freedom was more real. They chose Castro's version of freedom.
Now we don't subscribe to either version in total. We don't subscribe to either side's use of violence, which is coercive and punishing and offending. The yoke of evil is to be removed, but it is to be removed via the power of softheartedness totally absent the remnant of hardheartedness that gives rise to any violence. That's what Jesus did in his life, and he is the perfect example for every human being to bring about real heaven on earth, making earth truly real for the first time since hardheartedness came into existence here.
The hatred by certain people in the US toward Castro was heightened after the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis, by Cuba's coming to the aid of the freedom fighters in Angola. This part of history is hardly told at all, even though it figures as large as the Bay of Pigs and the missiles.
For an American, who is subjected to all the filtering and manipulation done by the US mass media, to judge where Fidel fits into the world, such an American need only look at how Nelsen Mandela views Castro. Mandela, a black African, was held for thirty years as a political prisoner by the white segregationist (apartheid) government of South Africa. The Afrikaners (those of Dutch extraction) mostly owned South Africa. They controlled the diamond and gold mines and employed the blacks as for all intents and purposes slaves. The blacks were held on reservations. The men mostly were separated from their families to work in the mines and elsewhere for the whites. They lived in utter poverty and worked under horrific conditions. Mandela and others fought against that wicked regime.
Now, it is a fact that the US government was itself just coming out of the same dominant mentality that those white South Africans were still deluded under. It was only after huge moral pressure was brought to bear from the grassroots that the US civil rights and human rights movements were finally able to effect the consciences of enough people that the powers that be told South Africa that it too would have to move away from such segregation, economic enslavement, and other such attendant evils.
Well, Mandela is now held up as a saintly hero of freedom and liberty as a result of his struggle against oppression.
What does Mandela think of Castro? He thinks Castro is a great person of history. He thanks Castro for saving the movement in Africa. Had Castro not taken the decision to intervene in Angola in the fight against white oppression, Mandela and others believe that the movement would have failed. Castro believes that Cuba too would have fallen again at the hands of the oppressors.
Well, it is wrong to fight and kill, but it is no less right to fight and kill against King George III of Great Britain than to fight and kill against the enslaving, dark power of laissez-faire capitalism.
As we have made clear before, laissez-faire capitalism is not freedom. It has been rammed down the throats of the masses since its inception. It is inherently undemocratic. It has required censoring of competing ideas. The truth must be masked from the public for it to continue on its ruinous path of global destruction. It is the devil hiding in plain sight.
This of course is not to say that Communism (large-c) is a better path. It isn't. It shares the exact same inherent, spiritually and biologically fatal flaw of coercion.
No, the only right path is truth being told without censorship so that the people may freely choose giving and sharing in softheartedness as the only correct path, not containing the seeds of its own destruction.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
What is happening now in Cuba? Well, Raul Castro is toying with the Chinese model. He is toying with the idea of a market economy under one party. What a huge mistake. That's falling right into the hands of the capitalist dictatorship. A truly grassroots, egalitarian democracy would turn the nation in the right direction, not the Chinese model.
The US is now using a two-pronged diplomatic approach to Cuba. They have the carrot of easing sanctions and restrictions in exchange for Cuba opening up to foreign laissez-faire investment. They also have the stick, which is the ultimate threat of invasion if the Cubans don't accept the only carrot being offered. The whole point is to draw out the Cuban leadership.
The direct US economic strength has been cut in half in the last fifty years. Right now, its World Bank and International Monetary Fund are being continually weakened by the Euro and by the re-emergence of China and Indian and other nations. Trade is not having to go through US controlled institutions any longer.
It indirect economic strength has been morphing into capitalist, satanic globalization. The Empire will openly morph into the one-world order, new world order, under competition, selfishness.
The US is not the heart of the Empire. Greed is. Greed has been central to the US rise, but greed is a cross-border phenomena. The other parts of the world will not fall now if the US economy slips radically.
The US in 1950 was about half the world's economy. Now at the beginning of 2007, it is roughly a quarter.
China, Russia, India, and Brazil are rising quickly.
The Euro is supplanting the US dollar to some degree as a world's currency.
The US elite/oligarchs will move their money around to suit their personal private needs rather than focusing upon what is best for the general American population or that of the world.
The wildcard as they call it is the US military. It is a huge arsenal that is only mundanely as good as it is used literally to fight for markets. Will the vestiges of nationalism cause the US elite to strike out more and more, or will the cooperation in globalization of greed feed their appetites more? Those in the counting houses will ultimately make the decision. It looks bad for the US from that perspective, since the head counter is in Europe.
Consolidation, integration, is the wave. Regions are banding together to compete with other regions. This is leading to global consolidation and integration, which the richest of the rich want for the sake of their designs on undisputed authoritarian (coerced and deceptive) rulership of the planet and all humanity.
Coercion though is the doomed approach. That's why God doesn't like using it. It's why Jesus cautions everyone not to pray for the destruction of one's oppressors, because that same standard must be applied to those who thusly pray. Humanity doesn't know where to draw the line between what is redeemable and what is not. That is why Jesus leads people to freely choose God, spread the word, do the good deeds, and then to leave those who don't choose that to their own ignorantly chosen fate.
Of course, the Cuban government has been atheistic. That is why it is about to make another grave error, the first being warfare to achieve its fleeting aims.
Rather than look to China to follow, Raul Castro better look to Jesus Christ.
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)