Zimbabwe and the whole world are a mess. Who caused it? The accusations are flying back and forth. Once upon a time, the area now known as Zimbabwe was in a state of nature, just as with every area of the Earth at one point. The people lived in a state of nature. They were families grouped as tribes. Some were more peaceful. Some were more warring, but on a small, local scale. (That didn't make such warring right however.)
White people were nowhere to be seen. Suddenly, white people began showing up with various motives. Of course, those who wanted land and worldly riches who couldn't have them so easily back where whites predominated because the land had already been taken by earlier warlords and capitalists, struck out to conquer Zimbabwe. They did it for a while.
Part of this process included for many and most of the whites the concept of racial superiority. The whites had already been steadily moving away for many centuries from what is considered a state of nature. The mere fact of that was used to rationalize ignorant, racist beliefs.
Various religious, ideological, and so-called scientific ideas swirled around. Wars were fought. Worldly Empires came and went. Throughout these times in other parts of the world history continued unfolding. Democracy American-style was supposedly being fleshed out.
Anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism became the buzz words. The black Africans rose up to overthrow their white masters with the aid of so-called progressive thinkers in the colonial powers home countries.
Ronald Reagan Racists
Pro-imperial racists, such as Ronald Reagan, spoke in favor of the whites continuing their lordship over the blacks in Zimbabwe and South Africa and in coded language in the American Deep South. He was also openly in favor of white dominance over the brown people in all the nations of the Americas south of the United States. He was also the enemy of American Indians in general.
Democracy was one of the main philosophical arguments used by the Progressives. It was an emotional appeal as much as anything. Democracy has been held up in the U.S. as a shining light for the rest of the world. George W. Bush regularly equates freedom with democracy and with so-called free markets, etc. Well, what has happened?
In Zimbabwe, the whites democratically lost their dominant position. The blacks rammed democracy down their throats by military force while the majority of whites in America agreed not to ride to the rescue of the racist whites in Zimbabwe. They lost what they had conquered by might. What they had coveted for themselves and their white offspring was taken back away from them. Of course, they didn't like that. The Zimbabweans voted in the leadership that had done that.
Good Democracy Against Giving and Sharing?
What did those whites do? Well, they did what has become the standard pattern. They said democracy is good but only when we win. The telling part is in the definition of "we" in this case.
The "we" here are those who hold up certain systems as sacred where sacredness ends up resulting in the system that is anti-giving and sharing always being in the dominant position in the minds of the masses. This anti-giving and sharing attitude is regardless of whether or not it is voluntarily based.
We see this in the current state of Israel where the greedier and more selfish-minded are opposed and always have been to the Kibbutzim (communist farm communities). The Kibbutzim didn't wall people in. Along came the forces of selfishness who did everything they could incrementally and in ways they thought too subtle for the masses to grasp to undermine the flow of the primarily sharing spirit. Why did they do that? Why do people want more than others? Is it ego? It's evil. They are of the opposite spirit of Jesus. Where Jesus said give and share, they say don't but rather be selfish (democratic but selfish, not democratic and unselfish: Sharing). Who's the better person, Jesus or the Likudnik? Well, Jesus is better of course. Who doesn't know that?
Now, that doesn't mean that Robert Mugabe has been right in his means or ends. In fact, he has not. By the same token, the fact that Mugabe has erred doesn't mean that all of his enemies are free from error, even greater errors.
Here we have the U.S. worldly Empire always touting democracy but always a democracy that is qualified and more so qualified in secret. The exact concept of democracy the worldly Empire has in mind when it refers to the "good" kind of democracy is never expressly stated. One is left to look at the fruit in order to discern what is or isn't acceptable to them and why.
Worldly Empire's Democracy a Fake
It comes down to this. Where the people vote for anti-giving and sharing, the worldly Empire supports it. Where the people vote for giving and sharing, the worldly Empire undermines it. It doesn't matter whether or not the votes of the people are backed by military power.
Historically, the darker the skin of the people involved, the more the worldly Empire spirit will move to undermine it one way or another.
This is not an oversimplification.
Propaganda: Dark Art: Evil Journalism
Mugabe has used coercion. The worldly Empire points to that and certainly isn't above exaggerating. In fact, negative propaganda is the dark art of exaggerating the negatives on one side while ignoring them on the other. It is the dark art of heightening the positives on one side while ignoring the positives on the other.
This is what we see in bad journalism practiced by the corporate mainstream self-styled news system that isn't there to report truth but rather what will at least eventually in the eyes of the corporate board, top executives, and largest shareholders, give them the most private, special privilege and advantage.
Where is the real fair and balanced reporting? You won't find it, because it doesn't exist. There is no one who knows all the ins-and-outs on both sides who will tell you objectively. The mainstream doesn't even try. In fact, they deliberately avoid it.
Talks Are the Way
Also, those who could make it happen, are not interested in sitting both and all sides down at the table to hash it all out. That's why you hear people screaming against Jimmy Carter saying that talking is the way.
You know, it wasn't that long ago that talking was held up very high in international relations and foreign policy. What happened? Why have the people who think with the selfish backs of their brains come to dominate? Why have the people who say, "We don't talk to terrorists," who themselves live in nations built upon terrorism, come to dominate? Well, that's the war for the hearts and minds and souls of humanity right there.
The unenlightened do everything they can to confuse and frustrate the movement to enlightenment. Jesus made that very clear. Read the Gospels with that in mind and see if I'm not telling the truth.
What should happen? All sides should sit down at the table and hash it all out in peace. All sides should agree to get to the bottom or root cause of the problems and to do what will be best all the way around. Can it be done?
It's been done before but with too many preconditions designed by those who don't really want to allow what is best to dictate the outcome. It's their egos and fears that get in the way. They have to suspend that. It's why the U.N. has its security council with each permanent member having a veto. That veto was an error. This doesn't mean that if one takes away the veto, one arrives at what is best. The U.N. is still based upon military and economic coercion.
It is supposed to be collective security, but it was poorly designed for that. It was designed by those who were unwilling to get at the root cause that is selfishness.
They fear being sucked into something they will fall short in upholding. That's the biggest challenge. People fear being shown up for their weaknesses. That's a huge error. That's the biggest error.
Most rationalize it as being afraid they will be outnumbered by the evil-hearted. That's an error. Where everyone agrees to get at the root cause and to do what comes out as best, there will not be dominance by the evil-hearted. The evil-hearted will dominate though where that agreement doesn't exist or where people refuse to adhere to it.
It all comes down to selfishness. Who is too selfish to sit at the table pre-agreeing that the point is to do what is best for all concerned? There is where you find the spirit of the enemy of God and Messiah. There is the emotion that must be overcome.
So, Hamas leaders were elected in free and fair elections: Democracy. Well, where's the consistency on the part of the U.S. worldly Empire? Why can't they sit down to talk with them? They fear the outcome. They fear being exposed.
Their talks have to remain secret so motives and positions the general population would find hypocritical and not good enough won't be exposed. Why follow leaders who fear exposure? Why choose such leaders? Why be bamboozled by the mainstream, corporate, propaganda machine? Well, if you never here the alternative, you don't even know you're sinning. That's what Jesus said.
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. John 15:22.
He raised the standard that the human race isn't even close to meeting.
Economic Sanctions Against Zimbabwe
What about the various embargos and economic sanctions against Zimbabwe? The George W. Bush administration is imperialistic in the worldliest sense. What happened in Zimbabwe was anti-imperialism. Hence, Bush place sanctions on Zimbabwe to squeeze Zimbabwe into submission so imperialism may return with the least effort on the part of the imperialists. He will claim that he did it to weaken Mugabe's dictatorship that used brutal tactics against imperialist minions.
Well, there it is — the half-truth that the corporate propagandists will serve up to the American public. They won't discuss the negatives of the imperialists, because they themselves are the imperialists. Bush uses brutal dictatorial tactics as well. Those are clearly in evidence in Iraq and elsewhere. Who can deny it?
Did Mugabe use offensive tactics in battling the worldly Empire? Yes, he did. Again though, that doesn't make the worldly Empire right. The worldly Empire has been selectively propagandizing. It has been harping about Mugabe's offenses while covering over its own.
Here's what Jesus has to say to the worldly Empire about this. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Matthew 7:3. Get the beam out of your eye before you work on getting the splinter out of Mugabe's. Is it appropriate?
Yes, the worldly Empire has a relative beam in its eye. There is no doubt about it. The only point to add about Jesus's teaching is that it is directed more so at those who are blind to their own beam. The worldly Empire is in fact not blind to its beam, which makes its sin all the greater.
Stop Thinking With the Reptilian Brain
So, we all need to get the beams and splinters out of each other's eyes. The best way to do that is via Jimmy Carter's demonstration. Be willing to sit down to talk about it all to get at the root cause (selfishness) in the spirit of willingness to really do what it will take to put things right (unselfishness). Don't be a hypocrite — the son or daughter of terrorists who says I won't sit down to talk or negotiate for peace with so-called terrorists. Start using the higher regions of your brain matter to think. Stop using the reptilian region.
The reptilian region says that people did bad things in the name of Christianity so Christianity is bad. It doesn't say that people twisted the concept of Christianity in the minds of the masses to enslave them and that what needs to happen is for the real meaning of Christianity to be put back. The reptilian region says that giving and sharing is good, but since Christianity was used by twisted people for twisted ends and since Christ said to be pacifistic that therefore we must coerce giving and sharing into existence. It doesn't say that Christianity must be put back to the giving and sharing, pacifistic way of its founder, Jesus.
Those who came along and said lets force giving and sharing (Marx) were just another version of twisting the truth into falsehood. Clear away the falsehood in your mind. Clear away the falsehood coming from both George W. Bush and Robert Mugabe.
Tell the leaders to sit down at the table and to not get up without having exhausted the discussion about the root cause of humanities problems and what best to do about them for all concerned.
Don't follow people who say they will not talk with or negotiate with their adversaries. Tell everyone you will follow only peacemakers. To talk with people with grievances is not to reward terrorism. It is to address grievances. Those who don't want to talk or others to talk have things they want to keep suppressed. They don't want to be confronted by their untenable positions. They don't want openly to have to defend them, because they would lose and they know it. They don't want the general population being exposed to those things concerning which the general population would definitely not agree.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Matthew 5:25. What does that mean in terms of the world issues we see? The adversary, the judge, the officer, the prison warden are each the satanic spirit. The torturers in the prison are satanic spirits.
Jesus is saying the sooner the better we all sit down together to hash it out to get at the root cause and to arrive at the consensus of what best to do. The longer we put that off, the worse the consequences on every level.
Frankly, little children and mature adults are willing to talk, but immature adults are not. Therefore, people need to want not to be immature adults about this. They must stop being immature adults who will walk out of talks when the talks start closing in on the truth.
Jimmy Carter is being a mature adult, a good roll model, setting a good example for the children by holding talks with the leaders of Hamas. He is practicing the very conflict-resolution techniques advocated in the elementary schools. When will the other adults catch up with the level of behavior we hold out as best to four-year-olds?
If you want to read more from the side that never gets to be heard in the U.S. mainstream, read,by Peter Mavunga. The Herald. April 18, 2008. (This is not an endorsement).
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)