Here was one of the greatest men ever to do it. And in his post modern eulogy, as is true for all greatness, let the debates begin: concerning his views, his political objectives, his practices and his beliefs.
In this short period of time since his passing; barely a week, I have witnessed assaults on this man's character, the likes of which had not dared been spoken while he was alive; and I've listened to ridiculous inclinations towards deification. Let's all just take a moment to breath. Breath in the global impact of his life. Breath out the toxic waste of slander that would destroy a valiant legacy. President Mandela, for all his flaws and all his attributes was a man. Let us not forget that.
As always I will state the purpose of this blog posting. This article will continue the theme of closely examining the assumed righteousness of western religion as it relates to western civilization. It will explore the idea that religion is more closely bound to, and the result of cultural traditions and socio economic beliefs than it is exercising any burden of proof.
The question then is this: if Nelson Mandela was such a profound humanitarian and bold world leader, why was he a communist? I am not an apologist for any socio economic tool albeit communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, etcetera. I am a pragmatist and I believe in pragmatism. I believe that different socio economic tools have their own pros and cons, their own angels and demons. To suggest that communism is thoroughly bad, corrupt and evil; and likewise that capitalism is the best form of socio economic control on the planet is like considering the possibility of the world being a perfect circle. It is not, it is a sphere.
Communism is a simple form of governance in which the government itself exercises as much control over commerce as it does governance and regulation.
Communism: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property. -Webster's Dictionary.
If this is the definition of communism, capitalism is almost the exact opposite. It gives control of commerce and the creation of profit to private companies who operate independently of government control. The role of the government here is to regulate and tax the business practices of these companies to ensure they do not abuse the needs, trust and safety of the public.
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. -Webster's Dictionary.
As you may imagine it is difficult to come up with any consistent research comparing and contrasting unbiased these two forms of societal manipulation. I won't try either. The fact of the matter is that in both cases you are dealing with a system of social manipulation to include both power and money.
To be clear, power is not money. This is a wide spread saying that over simplifies the process. The true power lies in the control of commodities. These commodities are then monetized and an economic system is generated.
In fact it is true that corruption is not limited to one socio economic agenda versus another. Corruption will exist as long as there is wealth and as long as there are people needing certain aspects of this wealth. It is true that Nelson Mandela had strong communist ties, was a card carrying communist member and supported Fidel Castro. My question is why is this a bad thing?
One issue I have in general is that the free thinking society has become marginalized. There is a box for every society, whether we like it or not. This box is framed by a number of factors. But the ability of people to think outside of their societal box is become more and more prohibited. In order to understand something you have to be able to be fully apart of it as well as fully separated.
Here in the western part of the globe, particularly America, we tend to view the world stage and the foreign policies of different cultures through one of two lenses. Either it is pro American or anti American. Thus suggesting that those who think this way believe that America and our culture is the centerpiece of policies across the globe. This view is rather eccentric to put it mildly. And it is extreme to put it bluntly.
America is not the moral backbone of anything.
Communism asserts that the state of a society or sovereign nation must control the commerce of the nation. Everything from your water, energy, media, transportation. Anything and everything that is a commodity belongs to the state. Right from the beginning, this spells immediate trouble. Here in America it is a long and difficult process to recall the last time our government has successful created or managed anything let alone the entire economy of a nation. But for a moment let us examine why this idea can be so appealing and consider why so many humanitarians, President Mandela included, had communist allegiances.
To begin this thesis we must understand where communism gets its origin. Communism is not original. Communism is the political interpretation of a social ideology called Marxism. Marxism of course is the ideology manifesto created by Karl Marx; a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, historian and journalist. Karl Marx himself was not a communist. He was a socialist.
One may make the analogy of democracy. Here in America, we have a political ideology called a democracy when in fact this country is not a democracy at all. We are a capitalist society run by capitalists who ultimate goal is profit by any means necessary. Our democracy is romanced by the notion of freedom and civil rights but our government does not answer to us. Our government answers to the capitalists who fund them.
Communism therefore is much of the same comparatively speaking, in light of the ideals it evolved from: Marxism. There are five key principles to Marxism and they are not wrong. They are in fact distinctly accurate:
1) Marxism places focus on the idea that society is based on conflicting interests. The most basic of which are classes. These classes are the Capitalist and the Labor. The capitalist class own and control the commodities. The labor class (or working class) sell their abilities to the capitalist in order to live. Marx's term for this conflict of interest is called Means of Production. This is Marx's term for all the material things necessary to produce wealth or products- everything but labor that is needed to make and distribute produce. Means Of Production includes natural resources like land, minerals, oil, trees etc.; tools and factories; means of distribution like roads and highways, vehicles.
2) Historical Materialism. According to Karl Marx history is simplified by production. History itself is nothing but an endless power struggle over controlling the means of production: the natural resources and labor necessary to live. All struggles, though they may appear to be over nationalism or religion etc., are really rooted in a struggle over the means of production and labor.
All cultural beliefs (ideologies) follow material/economic relationships; we cannot escape our economic lives (our dependence on others for goods and services) and all of our basic beliefs -- and he does mean all -- are a reflection of those economic relationships.
"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The “means of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." everything that we think (Ideology) and all of our human relationships stem from struggles over property. Historical colonialists said they are in Africa to "bring civilization" to the natives. But they are in fact there for ivory and gold. They used tools like religion to influence the ideology of the natives in the region and the same can be said of colonialists in America.
Now that these so called colonies have become "civilized" the Proletariat (working class) are always struggling to become the Bourgeoisie (Capitalist) and the Bourgeoisie are always struggling to keep them from doing so. All conflicts, including all wars, including all racism, including all sexism, are essentially this conflict: a battle between these two social classes over the means of production.
3) The third principle of Marx's conflicting interests is hegemony. The dominance of one group over another (the capital class over the working class) through force or Ideology (see below); the means through which one group calls “all the shots” in terms of both Material/Economic relations and beliefs.
4) Capitalism, profit and labor. Capitalist Ideology argues that profit belongs to whomever controls capital (material goods and means to produce and distribute those goods: the land, natural resources, tools, the means of distribution etc). Marxist Theory (or "Marxist Ideology") argued that profit margins are actually largely located in labor, thus labor has economic value. Capital may belong to the capitalist, but labor belongs to each man or woman him or herself. The working class is exploited in the form of profit: what the laborer rightly earned is given to the capitalist. This is key: no man can own or control the value of another man's labor or the relationship is inherently exploitive and, thus, immoral.
A perfect example of this is McDonalds. The value of the company is capped at just under 100 billion dollars. I want you to understand this number. $100,000,000,000 is larger than the net worth of a quarter of the world's economies combined. Yet the salary of McDonalds workers is not enough to even break the poverty line. And that is just here in the United States. In many parts of the world employees are working for almost free. And yet the value of the company dwarfs world economies. There is something wrong here and what is wrong is not the cost of production. What is wrong is the nature of capitalism that says the position of the few individuals controlling production is more valuable than the labor which allows the capitalist to realize profit.
In other words, the capitalist is more valuable to society than the laborer and therefore should be opulently compensated to reflect this rhetorical description.
5) The fifth and final key principle of Marxism is ideology. The control of knowledge to maintain existing or establish social class structures. A belief system adopted as “inherently true” that operates unconsciously and permeates a culture as truth itself. In The German Ideology Marx most clearly defines ideology as pertaining to "politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics etc." This is the part of Marxist theory we are most interested in because Marx radically changes the way philosophers see knowledge itself.
4) Capitalism, profit and labor. Capitalist Ideology argues that profit belongs to whomever controls capital (material goods and means to produce and distribute those goods: the land, natural resources, tools, the means of distribution etc). Marxist Theory (or "Marxist Ideology") argued that profit margins are actually largely located in labor, thus labor has economic value. Capital may belong to the capitalist, but labor belongs to each man or woman him or herself. The working class is exploited in the form of profit: what the laborer rightly earned is given to the capitalist. This is key: no man can own or control the value of another man's labor or the relationship is inherently exploitive and, thus, immoral.
A perfect example of this is McDonalds. The value of the company is capped at just under 100 billion dollars. I want you to understand this number. $100,000,000,000 is larger than the net worth of a quarter of the world's economies combined. Yet the salary of McDonalds workers is not enough to even break the poverty line. And that is just here in the United States. In many parts of the world employees are working for almost free. And yet the value of the company dwarfs world economies. There is something wrong here and what is wrong is not the cost of production. What is wrong is the nature of capitalism that says the position of the few individuals controlling production is more valuable than the labor which allows the capitalist to realize profit.
In other words, the capitalist is more valuable to society than the laborer and therefore should be opulently compensated to reflect this rhetorical description.
5) The fifth and final key principle of Marxism is ideology. The control of knowledge to maintain existing or establish social class structures. A belief system adopted as “inherently true” that operates unconsciously and permeates a culture as truth itself. In The German Ideology Marx most clearly defines ideology as pertaining to "politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics etc." This is the part of Marxist theory we are most interested in because Marx radically changes the way philosophers see knowledge itself.
Dominant ideologies:
a) Appear neutral while those threatening existing class structure are painted as “radical”
b) Are “existential”: created by material conditions and relationships; thus the essence of belief follows existence, historical reality or “facts on the ground”.
c) Thus analyzing and understanding a given Ideology explains material conditions of class structures ("who is who’s ho").
In this framework, all religious values are Ideology. The basic American Ideologies are Freedom, Equality, and Capitalism: these are the basic principles we pretty much all hold as "inherently true". Of course, where Marxism seems to have gone "wrong" is in not recognizing that the ideology Marxism would become implemented in the political form of Communism and would itself simply become another Ideology, in the same cynical sense it was designed to escape.
And yet A society cannot change the existing means of production and class structures without changing the existing ideology. Vice versa: changing existing ideologies is actually an attempt to change class structure. Inherently and always. Thus any and all discussion of values and beliefs is in fact an attempt to define class relationships: who controls the means of production.
Examples Of How Ideology Intersects With Means of Production and Class:
Colonialism: This is the easiest example and most direct form: one group uses racism, ethnic nationalism or its own inherent values to justify exploiting another race or nation's labor and natural resources. What's important here is that Marx doesn't believe people exploit others because they are racist but rather that racism exists so that we can exploit each other; remember, ideologies come from economic relations, not vice versa.
Diversity: People living in regions valuing "diversity" (California, New York etc.) have an economic interest in diverse peoples seeing each other as "equal" -- these regions are dependent on international trade, the importation of well educated foreign workers etc -- while states valuing segregation or "white supremacy" (Mississippi etc.) have economies built around cheap, race-based labor. In short, if seeing different cultures as "equal" lines my pockets, I will embrace equality; if seeing different cultures as "equal" costs me profit and seeing others as "inferior" lines my pockets, I'll lean toward racism and bigotry. It is important to understand that the antebellum period of America was marked by this economic view of diversity. This is why the north was free and why the south was not.
There is a sixth principle to Marxism that is not often discussed. And yet it is relevant to the way produce is monetized. This sixth principle is referred to as Alienation.
6) Alienation From Self and Labor: In industrial societies, workers are paid to produce material goods, and these goods are then sold to others; thus, labor (the work necessary to produce something) is objectified (labor is turned into a material object), and the worker is alienated from this object: his days are spent producing things for others, so he becomes separated from his life/work.
Example: A good, contemporary image to represent this would be the barefoot, teenage, Muslim, Indonesian woman running a machine to produce $100, size 10 Nikes for a six-foot, American, teenage boy (who will not hold a full time job until he is 22) to play basketball in, a sport the Indonesian teenager has never seen.... Compare this example to a peasant farmer or a hunter gatherer: these people produce the tools used to produce labor necessary to produce their own food, either on their own land or on ancestral hunting land; there is no or at least less separation between one's own labor (means of production) and one's own life, self, family, clan, tribe....
b) Alienation From Others: In industrial, capitalist society, labor is a commodity; it is something bought and sold on the economic market. Thus, capitalist society produces and ideology where-in all its members perceive one another as commodities. Further, capitalism encourages exploitation since the pursuit of capital- vs. the pursuit of morality, or love, or community- is the dominant ideology: the economic system pressures to get as much labor from one another for the least amount of capital. Simply put, capitalism forces everyone to perceive one another as commodities, objects for generating more capital.
Example: Rather than Nike existing to serve other Americans, or to help build a moral society, or for some other "higher purpose", Nike exists to generate capital (profit). Profit is the moral good. Thus, all Nike's executives, stock holders, managers, middle-managers- in short, every single person with a stake in Nike- is alienated from the teenage, Muslim, Indonesian woman running a machine to produce $100, size 10 Nikes. In fact, the more one is alienated from her, the less concerned we are about her well being...thus, Nike is encouraged by capitalist ideology to view her as a commodity -- an object, a number in a book -- rather than a human being.
Similarly, all of Nike's employees view each other this way. The stock holders view each other and the company this way. Everyone involved in this means of production is alienated from everyone else.
Here's a good example: Phil Knight of Nike has never set foot in one of his overseas factories (or "sweatshops") Marxist theory would argue that Knight's alienation from his employees (or from his contractors' employees- one further step of remove) allows him an Ideology of exploitation, and, conversely, his Ideology (Free Trade) justifies his alienation.
Most importantly, because Ideology permeates all levels of society, everyone in a capitalist society is trained to view everyone else as a commodity, an object: we are all taught to see each other as something we can exploit...and in a free-market society, this exploitation is the highest moral good.
While communism is seen as evil and the source of American global conquest it is important to recognize that Marxism is not amoral and neither is communism. Communism essentially means reintroducing products and therefore property to society not as personal items but communal values. And in this way one must draw the strong moral parallels between communism and the traditional western religions of early Christianity and Judaism.
While it is certainly accurate to say the Communism saw religion as the enemy, and vice versa, it's important to realize that the foundational Communist assumption pre-date capitalism and were common ideas to Judaism, the Catholic Church and Protestant Puritans: one should not exploit other members of one's own community and all economic relations must be moral -- that is, good for all concerned parties and the community as a whole. As we've already discussed, ancient Romans and Catholics alike banned interest on money-lending (usury). Further, the early American Puritans had far more in common with modern Communists than with free market and democratic capitalists: they held property in common and saw the community as a whole, rather than individual gain, as the measurement of economic good.
It wasn't until Christianity adopted the pagan rituals under Emperor Constantine and the church became political ideology that the idea of profit and labor exploitation became mutually accepted both by the state and the church. This communal society is easily seen in Jewish manuscripts and Old Testament Christian literature. Whatever wealth an individual had rights to as property was made accessible to the tribe or clan he was a part of and vice versa.
This is the truth of communism, there is nothing amoral about it. It is when these values encounter resistance by opposing forces, ideologies and forms of government that things become complicated. It is when corrupt capitalists take the reigns of a communist society that regimes become oppressive.
Much is said about Nelson Mandela's horrific failure to modernize his country's economy. And much of this failure is attributed to the failed principles of communism. However this is not true. A closer examination of the facts will quickly show the vibrancy of South Africa's economy and the formidability of it's dollar as Mandela altered his nation's history.
Mandela inherited years upon years of sanctions that had wreaked havoc upon his nation's economy. It is true that unemployment remains high. And yet President Mandela succeed in bringing in billions of dollars of foreign investment into his country. The problem was that most of the money came from the IMF which acted as the middle man and therefore charged interest. While the money was used to modernize the country's infrastructure to attract foreign investment, it failed to provide industries. This failure is a common attribute which is a hallmark of capitalism. Industries are created from resources. Whoever controls the most natural resources controls industry. South Africa, like much of Africa was not in control of its natural resources. Western capitalists were. Western capitalists still are.
Western capitalist assumed this long held strangle hold on natural resources since the days of European Christian crusades. These Christian crusades advertised as bringing the gospel to all corners of the globe in order to expedite the majestic return of Christ were ideology masquerades designed to capture the sovereign wealth of these colonized nations. Spain captured the gold of South and central America. Britain and France did the same in Canada and the continental U.S. as well as the continent of Africa. As gold and silver were depleted, diamonds and ivory were discovered. And as economies became industrialized, energy sources were found and mined.
Understand that capitalism is no less tyrannical than communism. In fact it is more so. The oppressiveness of communist regimes have more to do with the capitalist rulers controlling a society that believes in communal structure than it has to do with the failure of a socio economic system.
Capitalism thrives simply because there is no figure head on which to place the blame when things go wrong. The capitalists control the governments which give them freedom and when something goes wrong, every four years or so that leader is replaced. It's a game of musical chairs. The failure of communism is two fold.
1) Communism must be chosen by the people not forced. Karl Marx assumed that the people would get tired of being exploited. His research and subsequent publications were completed under the belief that the people would educate themselves on the nature of capitalism and seek to up end the social injustice it stands for. In fact many did. But his ideals were also exploited by profit seeking totalitarians who saw his ideals as a way to rally people in order to consolidate power not evenly distribute it. When the few individuals controlling produce are not independent of government what you have is not only labor exploitation, you also have oppression. People revolt against this oppression and it is suppressed, often times with violence in order to maintain power.
2) Communism failed because it tried to go global. The strength of capitalism is that power is not centralized. Instead it hides behind the financing of World Banks. The Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The corporations that sponsor them are the capitalists who control the production and distribution of the natural resources that the banks then in turn monetize. Using this scheme, it is easy to conquer nations. A country without its own natural resources or without the infrastructure to produce and distribute it is susceptible to the ploys of capitalism. Communism did not fail because the Soviet Union could not keep up with the US arms race. It failed because their financing came primarily from the taxes they imposed upon the nations they absolved. The problem is that these economies were weak to begin with, whose currencies were practically worthless. How can you tax people who don't have any money?
The strength of capitalism lies in the illusion of wealth. These faction world banks will loan a country like South Africa $1 billion and attach an interest to it. The interest pays off the private investors (capitalists) who comprise the bank but it does not pay off the principle. Do you know what pays off the principle?
One word. Debt. When these developing nations are ready to default on the loan the capitalists come in and occupy the natural resources. And if the nation's natural resources are not particularly valuable to the global economy they force open the markets and exploit them as either cheap or slave labor so that products can be cheaply made and the capitalist enjoy a higher profit margin.
Is this fair? Absolutely not. But what is fair is scarcely mimicked in reality. Because in reality you will always have those who seek to feel more important than the person sitting next to him. Of course we all know that no one human being is objectively more important than another. This concept is a superficial one based on subjectivity.
In all fairness, communism, consistent with its core values is a pure socio economic ideology. It is not an illusion it is pure in heart. Karl Marx makes one fatal mistake and this mistake cost him and communism a revered place in the lineage of revered empires. He sought to replace God with the state. There are few things that will cause people to revolt more than something that takes away their religion. It has been the death of every empire that has ever existed. Freedom to worship is intrinsic to manipulating people's allegiance to your government.
The Roman empire fell because after Constantine the provinces of the Roman Empire tired of Roman occupation. But it fell from within and much of this had to do with the dissolving of paganism and mutating it into an obscene compilation of myth and worship that is now modern Christian Catholicism. The core of Rome had always been pagan worship; that is worshipping as many gods as you like. It was taken away and the empire fell. The British Empire fell in similar fashion. The Soviet Union fell as well. This is the fatal flaw of Marxism. The fatal flaw of communism is its failure to provide unselfish leadership. It asked the people to adopt the principles that made it a formidable foe on the global stage but its leaders were at heart opportunists and capitalists not in charge of companies but countries.
The counter to the corruption of capitalism and the false illusion of wealth that capitalism employs is unselfish leadership. A leader who is one of the people and suffers and flourishes with his citizens.
This is why Nelson Mandela was so beloved and revered both domestically and globally. He was a communist in the purest sense of the word and Marx ideology. He held to the core principles that gave communism its appeal and rejected the trap of power that destroyed so many of its leaders. He himself believed in God and did not prohibit his citizens from exercising their right to do so.
The simple truth is this: you cannot fight corruption with corruption. You can only fight corruption with the truth. President Mandela did so and so communist or socialist, it matters not. The myth of capitalism was destroyed. President Mandela did so in noble fashion and this is the only way to begin the process of healing a world scarred by the demon of profiteering.
Western capitalist assumed this long held strangle hold on natural resources since the days of European Christian crusades. These Christian crusades advertised as bringing the gospel to all corners of the globe in order to expedite the majestic return of Christ were ideology masquerades designed to capture the sovereign wealth of these colonized nations. Spain captured the gold of South and central America. Britain and France did the same in Canada and the continental U.S. as well as the continent of Africa. As gold and silver were depleted, diamonds and ivory were discovered. And as economies became industrialized, energy sources were found and mined.
Understand that capitalism is no less tyrannical than communism. In fact it is more so. The oppressiveness of communist regimes have more to do with the capitalist rulers controlling a society that believes in communal structure than it has to do with the failure of a socio economic system.
Capitalism thrives simply because there is no figure head on which to place the blame when things go wrong. The capitalists control the governments which give them freedom and when something goes wrong, every four years or so that leader is replaced. It's a game of musical chairs. The failure of communism is two fold.
1) Communism must be chosen by the people not forced. Karl Marx assumed that the people would get tired of being exploited. His research and subsequent publications were completed under the belief that the people would educate themselves on the nature of capitalism and seek to up end the social injustice it stands for. In fact many did. But his ideals were also exploited by profit seeking totalitarians who saw his ideals as a way to rally people in order to consolidate power not evenly distribute it. When the few individuals controlling produce are not independent of government what you have is not only labor exploitation, you also have oppression. People revolt against this oppression and it is suppressed, often times with violence in order to maintain power.
2) Communism failed because it tried to go global. The strength of capitalism is that power is not centralized. Instead it hides behind the financing of World Banks. The Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The corporations that sponsor them are the capitalists who control the production and distribution of the natural resources that the banks then in turn monetize. Using this scheme, it is easy to conquer nations. A country without its own natural resources or without the infrastructure to produce and distribute it is susceptible to the ploys of capitalism. Communism did not fail because the Soviet Union could not keep up with the US arms race. It failed because their financing came primarily from the taxes they imposed upon the nations they absolved. The problem is that these economies were weak to begin with, whose currencies were practically worthless. How can you tax people who don't have any money?
The strength of capitalism lies in the illusion of wealth. These faction world banks will loan a country like South Africa $1 billion and attach an interest to it. The interest pays off the private investors (capitalists) who comprise the bank but it does not pay off the principle. Do you know what pays off the principle?
One word. Debt. When these developing nations are ready to default on the loan the capitalists come in and occupy the natural resources. And if the nation's natural resources are not particularly valuable to the global economy they force open the markets and exploit them as either cheap or slave labor so that products can be cheaply made and the capitalist enjoy a higher profit margin.
Is this fair? Absolutely not. But what is fair is scarcely mimicked in reality. Because in reality you will always have those who seek to feel more important than the person sitting next to him. Of course we all know that no one human being is objectively more important than another. This concept is a superficial one based on subjectivity.
In all fairness, communism, consistent with its core values is a pure socio economic ideology. It is not an illusion it is pure in heart. Karl Marx makes one fatal mistake and this mistake cost him and communism a revered place in the lineage of revered empires. He sought to replace God with the state. There are few things that will cause people to revolt more than something that takes away their religion. It has been the death of every empire that has ever existed. Freedom to worship is intrinsic to manipulating people's allegiance to your government.
The Roman empire fell because after Constantine the provinces of the Roman Empire tired of Roman occupation. But it fell from within and much of this had to do with the dissolving of paganism and mutating it into an obscene compilation of myth and worship that is now modern Christian Catholicism. The core of Rome had always been pagan worship; that is worshipping as many gods as you like. It was taken away and the empire fell. The British Empire fell in similar fashion. The Soviet Union fell as well. This is the fatal flaw of Marxism. The fatal flaw of communism is its failure to provide unselfish leadership. It asked the people to adopt the principles that made it a formidable foe on the global stage but its leaders were at heart opportunists and capitalists not in charge of companies but countries.
The counter to the corruption of capitalism and the false illusion of wealth that capitalism employs is unselfish leadership. A leader who is one of the people and suffers and flourishes with his citizens.
This is why Nelson Mandela was so beloved and revered both domestically and globally. He was a communist in the purest sense of the word and Marx ideology. He held to the core principles that gave communism its appeal and rejected the trap of power that destroyed so many of its leaders. He himself believed in God and did not prohibit his citizens from exercising their right to do so.
The simple truth is this: you cannot fight corruption with corruption. You can only fight corruption with the truth. President Mandela did so and so communist or socialist, it matters not. The myth of capitalism was destroyed. President Mandela did so in noble fashion and this is the only way to begin the process of healing a world scarred by the demon of profiteering.
Make no mistake about it, the United States of America is no less an imperial state than was the Soviet Union. The only difference is that the conquered nations outside the continent which comprise the empire do not fly the star spangled banner. They do not pay taxes to the crown. After all we are not fascists. No indeed we are something much more deceptive. We are capitalists. The conquered nations pay taxes in the form of interest to the loans given them by the faction world banks. The debt of their economy is used as collateral by our government to continue to borrow money to continue its world conquest. Because the United States, much like Russia, understood that the only way for the system to work is if it is totally and mercilessly implemented on a global scale. The quest for world dominance is and always has been about proliferating ideas.
Capitalism is racing against time. And it is hedging everything on its bet that it will conquer the world before the world realizes it has been deceived and that the people engineering this scheme have the ultimate goal of placing everyone in debt. They are betting that no one will look behind the illusion and realize that the capitalists, each time the market crashes and corporations and nations go bankrupt, wealth is consolidated and economic slavery is realized. They are betting on the wars of the United States to enforce their control of natural resources. They are betting on the natural political, economic and social chaos in the wake of these wars to create new frontiers for them to colonize with the almighty dollars.
The Christian Jesus is the Messiah that will save you from this turmoil. But to be fully accepted you must renounce your old allegiances and you must adapt a pro capitalist ideology. After all, the missionaries come bearing gifts. They come with bibles in one hand and economic aid in the other. To receive the aid you must first receive the bible. I'm sure the Messiah would be pleased.
At least for now, while Nelson Mandela is given to the age, he is not mistaken for God. Neither should he be. If he stood for anything worthy and just it is that the search for power comes at the expense of others. The goal of capitalism is the unjust search of profit by exploiting the rest of the society in its wake. The true messiah never said to pay the reverend for opening up a bible once a week. He never said to pay him ten percent of anything. He said "birds have nests and foxes have holes. But I have nowhere to lay my head. Pick up your cross, sell everything you own and follow me."
What pastor do you know has done this? What modern church leader embodies this? Instead they stand in front of a pulpit trying to convince you how difficult it is to be a Christian while you fork over a portion of your paycheck to pay his bills. Your leaders preach for profit, the staunch capitalists that they are. I guarantee you that if a congregation stopped paying the pastor and used that money to help poverty stricken children have food and get a proper education their pastor would stop preaching and find a church elsewhere, Call it competition. This is not a messianic principle. It is a Christian one and there is a difference. Jesus, for all he is reported as having been, was not a Christian. Christianity was founded after Jesus left the earth and it has continued to shift and mutate into whatever form ensures its survival.
Much of what was taught by the so called founders of the religion: Paul, Martin Luther, and the countless bishops of Rome have nothing to do with what Jesus taught. If Jesus wanted you to select pastors he'd have told you so. If he wanted you to have deacons, bishops and elders, he'd have told you so. He said "other sheep have I that are not of this flock. They are not of this fold but they are mine as well. They will hear my voice and I will be their shepherd." And then you have Paul telling you to confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead and you will be saved. Let me ask you this: when and where did Jesus ever say this? This manipulation of the message of the biblical Jesus is atrocious for it was Jesus who said "anyone who adds or takes away from my word will be in danger of hell fire."
If you doubt the validity of my words, ask yourself if the religion of Christianity would exist in current form were it not for Paul the apostle? The answer is no. And yet if Jesus is all we need how can this be the case. The ironies here is not debatable, they are profound. Paul was a murderer of the church. He was not imprisoned because he followed the sect. He was imprisoned because no one trusted him. One minute he's killing the sect of believers and the next minute he is not only following it, he is trying to recreate it in his own image. He had no friends, he had no allies. Where are the letters of his fellow believers writing back to him? There are none. Or they are in existence but the Vatican has hidden them for fear of what will be revealed.
Here is what we know for sure: Jesus tells his disciples in Matthew 23:39 "You will not see me again until you say 'blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Yet somehow Paul expects us to believe that Jesus broke his promise for him and him alone. And yet this peculiar self described account of his own conversion gets even more complicated and conflicted:
In todays court of law any information given by a person that is contradictory, and is also illogical, then this information is thrown out the court and the speaker who gave the information is discredited and cannot be taken as a reliable person at all. We find this precisely to be the case with Paul, when Paul talks about his supposed meeting with Jesus, he contradicts himself and is also illogical. So we shall just quote the passages that bring into question the credibility of Paul supposedly meeting Jesus. His several self described accounts are contradictory versions of the same event. He tells his version several times over, each with different versions. Once you see the contradictory statements it is difficult for the whole episode to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, and by default, the same must be said about the entire book of Acts and Paul's testimony as a whole.
Clearly contradicting himself on several accounts I am sorry but I am not convinced. This too is what happens when one attempts to add to something you were warned against adding to.
For the moment I will play the devil's advocate. Let's just say that Saul was the murderous Christian killing bane is depicted as in the bible. How exactly could he convince anyone that he had abandoned his ways and turned over a new leaf? Would he be believed unless he came with a spectacular tale, one that mimicked the historical career shifts of ancient Hebrew patriarchs? A bright light, a vision, a voice, and even a name change for full effect. My only question is it possible? Is it possible that Paul wanted nothing to do with the sect of believers who followed the teachings of the man called Jesus? Is it possible instead that Paul was motivated by establishing a religion for himself? Is it possible that his vendetta against the sect of believers was one of jealousy? No one knows who Paul, formerly Saul, was pre conversion. We know that he persecuted the sect in devastating fashion but it is not known which organization he belonged to if he in fact belonged to any.
One thing is clear and true. Christianity is not Jesus' religion. Jesus never intended his teachings to become a religion. Christianity was founded by Paul by exploiting the desire of the Greeks and Romans to be a part of a movement that was never originally intended for them. Paul tried to assert himself over those Jesus handpicked to tell the truth about his teachings and Paul used this zealousy and frustration of being excluded to his own ends. He fashioned a religion in his own image and called it Christianity.
1 Corinthians 4: 15-16 "For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to become followers of me."
Not followers of Christ, the urge, the demand, the desire and indignation is that these people become fashioned in his own likeness. This is blasphemy. And true to Paul's ability to conform and blend in with society "when in Rome do as the Romans" when did Jesus ever say this or anything related? Jesus said "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
And yet we find the so called church being in Rome and doing as the Romans. We find these Christians out in mass playing Santa Clause songs at home then turning around and singing hymns in church. Worshipping a trinity that is never talked about in the bible; finding ways to infer the validity of a triune god that no religious text every speaks to or validates then have the pious heresy to denounce so called pagans. And yet you worship three Gods you have found a way to classify as one. Which of course makes no sense because God is either one or he isn't. In the absence of the sense it does not make your create and adhere to doctrine in order to explain that which doesn't make sense. Then you find scriptures to loosely support it.
This may be difficult for Christians to understand today but Paul was not the vicar of truth he is revered as being today. Peter, the true rock of the church knew this and this is why he never accepted Paul. Have you ever found it curious why the man Jesus hand picked to spread his teachings refused to accept Paul's testimony? Paul, unlike Peter was not imprisoned for his teachings he was imprisoned on his own accord. And his guards acted more as body guard and human shields than captors because the man was never held captive. He was free to come and go on his own accord, to teach his version of events while the Roman guards accompanied him. The only reason he was not free is because he asked to be captive even when they tried to let him go unlike Peter and john who were taken captive involuntarily and subsequently beaten half to death. Acts 26:32, "Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar." Also take into account that Paul's imprisonment was house arrest. The only reason he was guarded was to make sure he was not killed by the Jews and true believers who knew what he was up to.
On one hand you have Peter and John ready to die for teaching that the Roman Empire and it's ideology was wicked and the object of damnation. On the other hand you have Paul saying: 1 Cor 9:20-22 20 "and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
There is only one shepherd. There is only one pastor. He is Yeshua. Was Yeshua divine? He said he was not. In fact he said he was not God, he was not even good. He said he was the son of man. Understand that the gospels were not written by the disciples. Paul's epistles are older that the gospels so that the gospels were written to reflect the writings of Paul. However what cannot be altered are the words of Jesus. It is the interpretation of these words that have led others astray. No greater are these faulty interpretations manifested than the writings of Paul. Paul has distorted the truth in his own image. He is the son of perdition, he is the great deceiver. He is the anti Christ and the fools have been following this man and his teachings as he beseeched you to. As he urged you to.
Of course this entire campaign must be funded somehow: the churches have to hire a pastor to explain of this complicated information and the schools must find a way to continue making money from the students paying half a million dollars each semester to learn the very book that any elementary education can decipher.
And then you pay an additional ten percent for so called missionaries to go over to some god forsaken refugee camp whose occupants have been exploited by the same flag and financial tyrants who put them there in the first place.
Then you have the audacity to call yourself holy and set apart from God. Here is an idea for you: what if the instructions of Jesus to "forsake your mother and father and follow me" has more to do with the socio- economic and ideological practices; indeed the religious practices and norms of your inherited culture and philosophies of the age and not just whether or not you say a curse word here or there or whether or not you have sex before marriage or listen to secular music. Which by the way each of the above have already been violated by 99.9% of the Christian followers anyway, you weren't a virgin before you got married and though you may not listen to Jay-Z or or Kanye West you sure do know those Santa and Frosty the snowman lyrics by heart. What then exactly are you separate from?
Oh yes, but of course. You are sanctified.
You arrogantly attribute your middle class position in life to the blessings of almighty God on America for following his word: a group of books, the majority of which, nobody knows who wrote them; arranged by the original tyrants who started it all the Roman Catholic church, the epitome of corruption itself. When this nations wealth has come from the slaughter, genocide and exploitations of people who we would curl our noses at if we saw them on the corner waiting for the bus or in line looking for room at the shelter. But your messiah was born in a manger because there was no room for him at the inn so the story goes.
Let me ask you a question. Would you have bowed the knee to a infant? There is a reason the history books outside of the bible failed to record this moment in time. There is a reason the three wise men were nameless and untraceable. There is a reason the virgin Mary's genealogy is not recorded in the bible. The story is flawed and so is the religion. If you wouldn't bow the knee to a baby today; if you wouldn't believe your fiancé if she told you she was pregnant but still a virgin now, what makes you so sure you would be a faithful follower. What makes you think you are?
Oh yes I forgot. You pay your tithes so that the Christian faith can continue to make a profit. After all, these church leaders have to earn a living somehow don't they? I guess Jesus was just talking out the side of his mouth.
We see great parallels. We see that both Karl Marx and Jesus were idealists. And yet what has been attributed to these two men are both morally, practically and ethically perverse. It is the implementation of these beliefs that came post mortem that rendered chaos. Was Jesus God? I do not know. What I can tell you is that Jesus never said that he was. What I can tell you is what and who Jesus was not. Jesus was not a Christian and Jesus was not a capitalist.
As always, Fear Not. Love Now. Thank you.
*In order to view the videos I have included, you need to view from your desktop.
Capitalism is racing against time. And it is hedging everything on its bet that it will conquer the world before the world realizes it has been deceived and that the people engineering this scheme have the ultimate goal of placing everyone in debt. They are betting that no one will look behind the illusion and realize that the capitalists, each time the market crashes and corporations and nations go bankrupt, wealth is consolidated and economic slavery is realized. They are betting on the wars of the United States to enforce their control of natural resources. They are betting on the natural political, economic and social chaos in the wake of these wars to create new frontiers for them to colonize with the almighty dollars.
The Christian Jesus is the Messiah that will save you from this turmoil. But to be fully accepted you must renounce your old allegiances and you must adapt a pro capitalist ideology. After all, the missionaries come bearing gifts. They come with bibles in one hand and economic aid in the other. To receive the aid you must first receive the bible. I'm sure the Messiah would be pleased.
At least for now, while Nelson Mandela is given to the age, he is not mistaken for God. Neither should he be. If he stood for anything worthy and just it is that the search for power comes at the expense of others. The goal of capitalism is the unjust search of profit by exploiting the rest of the society in its wake. The true messiah never said to pay the reverend for opening up a bible once a week. He never said to pay him ten percent of anything. He said "birds have nests and foxes have holes. But I have nowhere to lay my head. Pick up your cross, sell everything you own and follow me."
What pastor do you know has done this? What modern church leader embodies this? Instead they stand in front of a pulpit trying to convince you how difficult it is to be a Christian while you fork over a portion of your paycheck to pay his bills. Your leaders preach for profit, the staunch capitalists that they are. I guarantee you that if a congregation stopped paying the pastor and used that money to help poverty stricken children have food and get a proper education their pastor would stop preaching and find a church elsewhere, Call it competition. This is not a messianic principle. It is a Christian one and there is a difference. Jesus, for all he is reported as having been, was not a Christian. Christianity was founded after Jesus left the earth and it has continued to shift and mutate into whatever form ensures its survival.
Much of what was taught by the so called founders of the religion: Paul, Martin Luther, and the countless bishops of Rome have nothing to do with what Jesus taught. If Jesus wanted you to select pastors he'd have told you so. If he wanted you to have deacons, bishops and elders, he'd have told you so. He said "other sheep have I that are not of this flock. They are not of this fold but they are mine as well. They will hear my voice and I will be their shepherd." And then you have Paul telling you to confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead and you will be saved. Let me ask you this: when and where did Jesus ever say this? This manipulation of the message of the biblical Jesus is atrocious for it was Jesus who said "anyone who adds or takes away from my word will be in danger of hell fire."
If you doubt the validity of my words, ask yourself if the religion of Christianity would exist in current form were it not for Paul the apostle? The answer is no. And yet if Jesus is all we need how can this be the case. The ironies here is not debatable, they are profound. Paul was a murderer of the church. He was not imprisoned because he followed the sect. He was imprisoned because no one trusted him. One minute he's killing the sect of believers and the next minute he is not only following it, he is trying to recreate it in his own image. He had no friends, he had no allies. Where are the letters of his fellow believers writing back to him? There are none. Or they are in existence but the Vatican has hidden them for fear of what will be revealed.
Here is what we know for sure: Jesus tells his disciples in Matthew 23:39 "You will not see me again until you say 'blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Yet somehow Paul expects us to believe that Jesus broke his promise for him and him alone. And yet this peculiar self described account of his own conversion gets even more complicated and conflicted:
The first mention of Paul meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus
1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus Jerusalem Damascus
So few things to note, Paul is on a journey, he then sees a light and hears a voice, this voice is supposedly Jesus. Paul then asks Jesus what do you want me to do? The response by Jesus is for Paul to go to the city and it will be made known to him over there. Now lets read whats Acts 26: 12-18:
12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me
Note the difference, in the first account all Jesus tells him is go to the city to find out what you must do, in this account in Acts 22 we see Jesus already telling Paul what he meant to do! So which one is it? Will Paul know what his purpose is in the city? Or did he already know?
In fact in the account version of Acts 22: 5-10, there is no mention of Jesus telling Paul all this information:
. 5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. 6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10 And I said, What shall I do, LORD? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do
This account agrees with the version of Acts 9, Acts 26 is the only different one in this case, Acts 26 contradicts Acts 9 and 22.
It is very easy to notice the contradiction, in Acts 9 and 22, Jesus tells Paul that he will know what to do in the city, in Acts 26 Jesus already tells Paul what he will do and mentions nothing about going to a city to find out. So which one is it? We already have enough proof to discredit the entire account of Paul meeting Jesus, however so there is more.
Acts 9: 1-7:
1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus Jerusalem Damascus
As we can see, Acts verse 7 says that the men who accompanied Paul heard a voice, but saw no man, they saw no one. Now let us compare this with Acts 22 5-9:
. 5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus Jerusalem Damascus noon , suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
So now as you can see, in Acts 22 Paul says the men saw a light, but heard no voice. In Acts 9 Paul says the men saw no man, but heard a voice. The obvious contradiction is there, there is no denying it. So this piece of information also throws doubt into the entire episode, it suggests that the story is not credible at all. Who exactly were these men? Why were their names and relation to Paul's allegiances and societal position not given? Oddly enough they are excluded as peculiarly as the identity of the magi who followed the star to Bethlehem. This curious omission does not provide any means of validation. Its like they are props in a theatre; extras in a production self described by a moral protagonist with an agenda.
In the case of Paul we already have 2 contradictions. This account would not stand up to any respectable court of law, which is the ethical basis for much of the self validation approach of Christian apologists. "The Bible validates itself" we are told.
1) This is not possible; for something to validate itself makes it immune to the laws around it and the principles it imposes upon others.
2) We see what happens when something claims to be self validated. It is open to criticism it cannot refute with anything but the hell fire that accompanies disbelief and eternal damnation for refusing to conform to something that cannot stand up against scrutiny.
In the case of Paul we already have 2 contradictions. This account would not stand up to any respectable court of law, which is the ethical basis for much of the self validation approach of Christian apologists. "The Bible validates itself" we are told.
1) This is not possible; for something to validate itself makes it immune to the laws around it and the principles it imposes upon others.
2) We see what happens when something claims to be self validated. It is open to criticism it cannot refute with anything but the hell fire that accompanies disbelief and eternal damnation for refusing to conform to something that cannot stand up against scrutiny.
Based on this information we must also consider the possibility that the entire book of Acts is now in doubt, and potentially unreliable. The character of Paul is clearly in doubt and his testimony is unreliable, as we clearly see he cannot stay consistent at all. It does not end there, there is still another contradiction left and a logical fallacy. But first the contradiction:
Acts 26: 12-14:
12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
So as you can see, the verse says that Paul and the men with all fell down, easy to see and understand. Let us read what Acts 9 and 22 have to say.
Acts 9: 5-7 :
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man
So as you can all see, Acts 9 shows the men did not fall to the ground, but stood speechless, they were shocked that they stood still. No one fell down, hence we have another contradiction. So which one was it? Did the men with Paul all fall down? Or did they stay standing? It seems Paul cannot give a straight answer! It doesn’t end there, let us read Acts 22.
Acts 22:5-7:
. 5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus Jerusalem Damascus noon , suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
So we now see Paul saying that he fell. Not everyone, but him alone, so now Paul again contradicts himself. So which one is it? Acts 22 and 9 agree that only Paul fell, Acts 26 says that they all fell, which one is it? The answer is non of them are correct, it is all a big lie, a hoax made up by Paul. He most likely paid those men with him to act like he saw something, you want proof? Sure I will show you the proof.
I'm not sure what inspired these contradictions from Paul. But this leads to the logical fallacy, this logical fallacy does suggest that Paul made the whole thing up.
Acts 9: 1-9:
1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 And desired of him letters to Damascus Jerusalem Damascus Damascus
The supposed light that Paul saw blinded him for three days, this is supposedly to show how strong this light was and how great and glorious it was that Paul went blind.
Here is the logical fallacy:
Acts 22: 5-11:
5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus Jerusalem Damascus noon , suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10 And I said, What shall I do, LORD? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus Damascus
For the moment I will play the devil's advocate. Let's just say that Saul was the murderous Christian killing bane is depicted as in the bible. How exactly could he convince anyone that he had abandoned his ways and turned over a new leaf? Would he be believed unless he came with a spectacular tale, one that mimicked the historical career shifts of ancient Hebrew patriarchs? A bright light, a vision, a voice, and even a name change for full effect. My only question is it possible? Is it possible that Paul wanted nothing to do with the sect of believers who followed the teachings of the man called Jesus? Is it possible instead that Paul was motivated by establishing a religion for himself? Is it possible that his vendetta against the sect of believers was one of jealousy? No one knows who Paul, formerly Saul, was pre conversion. We know that he persecuted the sect in devastating fashion but it is not known which organization he belonged to if he in fact belonged to any.
One thing is clear and true. Christianity is not Jesus' religion. Jesus never intended his teachings to become a religion. Christianity was founded by Paul by exploiting the desire of the Greeks and Romans to be a part of a movement that was never originally intended for them. Paul tried to assert himself over those Jesus handpicked to tell the truth about his teachings and Paul used this zealousy and frustration of being excluded to his own ends. He fashioned a religion in his own image and called it Christianity.
Not followers of Christ, the urge, the demand, the desire and indignation is that these people become fashioned in his own likeness. This is blasphemy. And true to Paul's ability to conform and blend in with society "when in Rome do as the Romans" when did Jesus ever say this or anything related? Jesus said "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
And yet we find the so called church being in Rome and doing as the Romans. We find these Christians out in mass playing Santa Clause songs at home then turning around and singing hymns in church. Worshipping a trinity that is never talked about in the bible; finding ways to infer the validity of a triune god that no religious text every speaks to or validates then have the pious heresy to denounce so called pagans. And yet you worship three Gods you have found a way to classify as one. Which of course makes no sense because God is either one or he isn't. In the absence of the sense it does not make your create and adhere to doctrine in order to explain that which doesn't make sense. Then you find scriptures to loosely support it.
This may be difficult for Christians to understand today but Paul was not the vicar of truth he is revered as being today. Peter, the true rock of the church knew this and this is why he never accepted Paul. Have you ever found it curious why the man Jesus hand picked to spread his teachings refused to accept Paul's testimony? Paul, unlike Peter was not imprisoned for his teachings he was imprisoned on his own accord. And his guards acted more as body guard and human shields than captors because the man was never held captive. He was free to come and go on his own accord, to teach his version of events while the Roman guards accompanied him. The only reason he was not free is because he asked to be captive even when they tried to let him go unlike Peter and john who were taken captive involuntarily and subsequently beaten half to death. Acts 26:32, "Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar." Also take into account that Paul's imprisonment was house arrest. The only reason he was guarded was to make sure he was not killed by the Jews and true believers who knew what he was up to.
There is only one shepherd. There is only one pastor. He is Yeshua. Was Yeshua divine? He said he was not. In fact he said he was not God, he was not even good. He said he was the son of man. Understand that the gospels were not written by the disciples. Paul's epistles are older that the gospels so that the gospels were written to reflect the writings of Paul. However what cannot be altered are the words of Jesus. It is the interpretation of these words that have led others astray. No greater are these faulty interpretations manifested than the writings of Paul. Paul has distorted the truth in his own image. He is the son of perdition, he is the great deceiver. He is the anti Christ and the fools have been following this man and his teachings as he beseeched you to. As he urged you to.
Of course this entire campaign must be funded somehow: the churches have to hire a pastor to explain of this complicated information and the schools must find a way to continue making money from the students paying half a million dollars each semester to learn the very book that any elementary education can decipher.
And then you pay an additional ten percent for so called missionaries to go over to some god forsaken refugee camp whose occupants have been exploited by the same flag and financial tyrants who put them there in the first place.
Then you have the audacity to call yourself holy and set apart from God. Here is an idea for you: what if the instructions of Jesus to "forsake your mother and father and follow me" has more to do with the socio- economic and ideological practices; indeed the religious practices and norms of your inherited culture and philosophies of the age and not just whether or not you say a curse word here or there or whether or not you have sex before marriage or listen to secular music. Which by the way each of the above have already been violated by 99.9% of the Christian followers anyway, you weren't a virgin before you got married and though you may not listen to Jay-Z or or Kanye West you sure do know those Santa and Frosty the snowman lyrics by heart. What then exactly are you separate from?
Oh yes, but of course. You are sanctified.
You arrogantly attribute your middle class position in life to the blessings of almighty God on America for following his word: a group of books, the majority of which, nobody knows who wrote them; arranged by the original tyrants who started it all the Roman Catholic church, the epitome of corruption itself. When this nations wealth has come from the slaughter, genocide and exploitations of people who we would curl our noses at if we saw them on the corner waiting for the bus or in line looking for room at the shelter. But your messiah was born in a manger because there was no room for him at the inn so the story goes.
Let me ask you a question. Would you have bowed the knee to a infant? There is a reason the history books outside of the bible failed to record this moment in time. There is a reason the three wise men were nameless and untraceable. There is a reason the virgin Mary's genealogy is not recorded in the bible. The story is flawed and so is the religion. If you wouldn't bow the knee to a baby today; if you wouldn't believe your fiancé if she told you she was pregnant but still a virgin now, what makes you so sure you would be a faithful follower. What makes you think you are?
Oh yes I forgot. You pay your tithes so that the Christian faith can continue to make a profit. After all, these church leaders have to earn a living somehow don't they? I guess Jesus was just talking out the side of his mouth.
As always, Fear Not. Love Now. Thank you.
*In order to view the videos I have included, you need to view from your desktop.
