The following is an email reply of mine:
Hi [I don't know whether the person would be concerned about the name being associated here, so I've left it out],
A search on the RLCC website will show that I've written about Battalion 3-16 and the KUBARK manual, etc. The concepts about which you've written to me were all familiar to me. I was aware of the "primitiveness" of much of Mexico.
I understand your reaction to my statement concerning the RC's. I do realize that they are elitists. They always have been. That church is fully a part of the empire (Beast of the Bible). There are anti-Beast Roman Catholics (non-violent liberation theologians), but they don't understand that they are RC's in name only and should renounce their affiliation and follow Jesus and not their Pope.
Let me say further, not that you are necessarily unaware but rather that it bears stating (much as why you sent me what you did), that the plutocrats have no intention of leaving any people on Earth unmolested. Their intention is to "civilize" all and where "civilize" to the plutocrats means "enslave." They intend that all the Earth be held under "legal" titles where there will be zero Commons. There are to be no "unbanked."
They will force this via technology against which no one is to be able to defend in anyway. In other words, they intend to bring Hell in full. Only the metaphysical will save.
Your emails to me and mine to you are not private. Communications have not been private for decades – long before 9-11.
I have had a dossier on me since the late 1960's. My family was "radical." I was the most "radical" (extreme idealist) of my family (albeit not a professing Christian for having not yet cross-referenced scripture). "Radical" there is as was defined at the time by the fascist/sociopath, J. Edgar Hoover, far, far from the only one, as you no doubt appreciate.
To summate your article, it's about the U.S. as a mixed state with heavy fascist tendencies that use simplistic sound bites in conjunction with so many other lifelong conditioning methods to convince American public opinion. That said, Marxism, and more importantly to Mexico, Trotskyism were and are evil realities too.
The idea is money. The United Fruit Company figured and still figures prominently under other names. The Dulles brothers (Yalies) and the CIA simply worked for a wing of the plutocrats. The impetus for many of the Whites who first set foot on these continents was Empire. The Monroe Doctrine was simply to say "ours" versus Europe's. The Bush administrations went into Iraq both times in the power struggle between groups of families (Biblically nations).
The reason the U.S. doesn't pursue alternative energy for instance is not so much because Exxon is heavily invested in oil but more because the U.S. seeks to deny China and India, etc. If the U.S. turns to alternatives, as it could very easily, and moves out of the Middle East, China and India and others move in and use the oil anyway to fuel their budding military empires. That's the fear-propaganda internal to second-tier plutocrats.
Most importantly, the plutocrats believe that the people belong to them, the plutocrats, by virtue of the fact that those plutocrats have the temerity to create it in fact, to manifest it, to force it. They are demon possessed, plain and simple.
As for "rent," I'm not interested in putting the Christian Commons into that position. While there is no such thing as a real allodial title save in the New Heaven, that's the direction I'm heading. The Church is its members. Those members will own all together and equally everything the Church owns. If you can create that in Mexico, tell me how. I don't want to bring forth less.
When I was researching existing situations and possibilities, I did look at ejidos. I didn't see them as conducive enough.
The title must be the Church's. Can that be done? If so, tell me how and short of violent revolution, which violence I stand against.
Blessings To All There,
I want to qualify the position concerning renting property. The RLCC will rent temporarily. What we want to avoid is renting permanently. We want to avoid getting locked into a situation where the Church would have built up something only to be placed under economic duress greater than is the common place anyway. The Church can only come to own ejido land in Mexico if the people who own that land become the Church. Yes?
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)