And further to my last email, shut up about the clergy class - another of my uncles worked as a Jesuit, as many Aussie priests do, bringing education and medical aid to the Dalits (Untouchables) in India. I can send you their newsletters if you give me your postal address.
Hello again, Babette,
When my house is on fire, I'm not going to the arsonists. And oh, hey, look! The Catholic Church was already found guilty by the ICJ of committing Genocide!!! "Nicaragua v. United States," see the Wikipedia entry here: Wikipedia: Nicaragua vs. the United States. The Catholic Church supported the contras by helping by giving moral and financial support to the terrorists: Wikipedia:Contra Guerrillas. Big deal. Your church has been found guilty, by the history books and the court system. Has the Catholic Church paid any reparations here? No, it hasn't.
And where are the criminal investigations for the genocide of Palestinians, the inhabitants of East Timor, the Oaxaca massacre, the genocide in Chile and Indonesia, etc., etc.? In more than half of these, the Catholic Church gave moral and financial support to the genocidists, or, at the very least, purged all of its newspapers of information on the subject, just like world war 2. They tell Catholics that they're shooting Communists, but, actually, the Catholics believing this are actually shooting other Catholics. This is "love thy enemy" in action. After all, there's no investigation into the international, sex-slavery ring that the pope has been operating since 1450. Every book on the Inquisition shows that part of its purpose was to help give priests access to potential rape victims. Unless you have been ignoring all the newspapers lately, you ought to know this, and that the Pope has rewarded those for covering up sex scandals, right?
Pinochet, a devout follower of the Catholic Church, who was never publicly criticized by the pope for suppressing democracy or killing his own people.
The UN allows this mass child sex-slavery to go on, just within the doors of the Catholic Church, and does nothing? Yeah, that's exactly why I'm not going to rely on a bunch of murderers, rapists, and accomplices to murder and rape to achieve justice. In fact, to achieve this end, I'm obviously going to have to fight them. Doesn't that make sense?
I wish I had a right to my own property, but the police have repeatedly broken in and destroyed property. The district attorney won't respond to my letters or phone messages about it. Do you know anything about America? You know there's a video of American police executing Oscar Grant in public in a subway station, with hundreds of onlookers, and there was never a charge of murder? It's on Youtube. Sean Bell, Deandre Brunston, James E. Alexander, Kirmon Warren, etc., etc., etc.. My rights are protected? Can you please explain to me, then, why the police destroy our property and kill our people, without so much as an investigation or a trial?
This so-called "democratic political system" is as democratic as the Soviet Union. The number killed by the government, as well as the number incarcerated, is higher in the United States than at any point in the Soviet Union. Why should I care for "Democracy" when it kills and imprisons more than Soviet Totalitarianism? I think we both know the answer: the so-called Democracy of both the United States and the Soviet Union are illusory. They are tacked on because that's what the people want to hear. It is part of the message that's necessary for brainwashing the people into obedience, and it has no actual relationship to reality. Those who fire back at police who are shooting them serve longer sentences in prison than police who execute people in public -- in fact, these killer police almost serve no time whatsoever, receiving a required month-vacation, before going right back on duty.
Perhaps you've forgotten that things like theft, drugs, murder, and prostitution are legal for the wealthy, and illegal for the poor. Andrew Carnegie, like other Capitalists, was never prosecuted for shooting his own workers when they tried to unionize. But he gave lots of money to the church, so they hail him as a "good Christian."
People do not want handouts and a little bit of charity in the midst of starvation. They want the right to work the lands, to reap the benefit from their labor, and to satisfy the needs of themselves and their family. Translated to the missionary question: people who have been colonized did not want to be colonized, and upon colonization, widespread famine spread. In places like Africa, South America, and even in India and Asia, people lived in communal villages that guaranteed the well-being of every individual. (See the book "The Economics of Under-developed Countries," by Peter T. Bauer and Basil S. Yamey, edited by J.M. Keynes and Milton Friedman, 1957.)
Since much of this was subsistence farming, they could pay no taxes, so the colonial governments seized their lands, forcing them into a culture shock: they must now either work the land that they once owned, which used to provide for all, to receive a pitiful wage, and if they do not, they starve to death. The underdevelopment and mass starvation of underdeveloped nations is not a problem of lack of opportunity or lack of resources; it is an enforced situation where their native lands have been repossessed and where Capitalist ambition isn't strong enough to provide employment. The solution is not charity -- it is agrarian reform. Or, more specifically, Libertarian-Socialist Revolution, or something resembling it, although perhaps not in word or ideology.
So, you see, colonized people don't want the help of missionaries, and if they do, it's because they've grown up in a conditioned environment that blinds them into thinking that their situation is actually good. They are taught to be thankful for the little bit they are allowed, while there is mass unemployment and poverty. Those who are stricken with hunger don't always ask themselves, "Why are things like this?" or "Are things going to continue on like this?" They may ask it in regards to themselves, individually, but not to the whole collective mass.
Missionaries have a very awful heritage. They have accompanied ships that brought guns, rape, and slavery to all lands. You are aware that Christopher Columbus and the other Catholic "Conquistadors" all brought slavery? You know that they genocided people from the Incan and Aztec Empires, as well as others of North America? Before, the Catholic missionaries had the purpose of blessing the chains that foreign powers enslaved locals with. Today, that is still its purpose, but now it has a greater use: it is used for relocating priests who are child rapists.
Che Guevara was a homeless doctor who gave his services to anyone who needed it in Chile, Argentina, Columbia, and all throughout South America. Even Margaret Sanger spent fourteen years of her life in service to others as a nurse. But these people have realized the futility of their efforts. One can keep healing the same wound, but why if the cause of it is not removed? Why is it that Capitalism and private domination of the lands is not abolished in favor of a social system that mutually benefits every person? There are not many reasonable objections to this -- except Catholicism. Once again, hero of child rapists and foreign conquest, swoops in to save the system of Capitalism. How typical.
I don't think Socialism, or at least, meaningful Socialism, has anything to do with your taxes, except abolishing them. They go to courts, police, and parliaments that keep the workers from striking. They pay for the guns and bayonets that break up strikes, that shoot down workers. If you are Indian, you should know the story of the independence of India: the Royal Indian Naval Mutiny in Bombay brought insurrection throughout the country, where many police officers were shooting into unarmed crowds. The people don't need your taxes to create Socialism. They need to abolish all things dependent upon taxes, like the government and the police, so that they can demand their rights to land and liberty without being violently oppressed.
Ah ha, so you are located in the USA - take your complaints to Obama, that devout Muslim.
As for India which I know a great deal better than you do, the British abolished Sati, the charming custom the Hindus had of burning widows on their husband's funeral pyres. And the British gave us democracy, the rule of law, the Parliamentary system, the railways (in which my father worked) and ideals like abandoning the caste system and untouchability.
You really need to distinguish between the military and missionaries. And before Christian missionaries befriended lepers, (and before there was any curative treatment for this disease), the unfortunate victims had to walk belled like a cat and call out "unclean", "unclean", to warn other citizens.
If India had suffered so much from colonialism, it would not have remained friends with Britain or the USA.
And your mention of Che Guava (that rather acrid fruit!) reminds me what a bloodthirsty villain he was and how only adolescents (or the perpetually mentally adolescent) still worship his memory. If I recall, his symbol was a machine gun. And even our beloved Fidel has now acknowledged that the communist economic system has not served his country well...
Sorry you are in prison and being hassled by the police. Tell your pal Obama that you are a Muslim homosexual and he should have you out of jail pronto and probably appointed to his Cabinet.
Hello again, Babette,
And when those railway workers went on strike, the British colonial troops fired machine guns at them. Nor has Sati been completely abolished, nor has the caste system still determines who is allowed to participate in government and who is not. Why would the British abolish caste rule? They maintain it themselves under a varied system of State-run Capitalism, with wealthy capitalists, bribable politicians, exploitive middle classes, and exploited masses of the working class. Of course they'd have no impact at all in abolishing these things, because they believed in them for their own people.
Are you aware that missionaries were enslaving indigenous Native American people, at the orders of the Catholic Church, after the American Civil War had allegedly abolished slavery? Read it here:
Castillo, Edward D. (1998). Short Overview of California Indian History", California Native American Heritage Commission.
And if you disagree, go post your disagreements at the Wikipedia editor's discussion page. You know, anyone can click "edit" and edit the page, creating an argument with other editors. Why don't you do that? Billions use Wikipedia, and apparently billions of people are wrong, and you are right. Why don't you go over there and enlighten them with your Catholic wisdom? Prove that since the Catholic Church is loving, it could not be ordering slavery in 1867 of indigenous Native Americans:
The families of those enslaved by Catholicism number upwards of sixty million: ten times the number of Jews executed by the Reich. The Church participated directly in both efforts. Go ahead, try to prove the Wikipedia editors wrong.
The United States, Ireland, and France were all viciously and brutally oppressed by the British Empire as colonies. That doesn't mean that they in "bad relations" with the US today. The problem of your idea here is you think that the people control the government, when it is just the opposite: the government control the people. The oppression of these colonies did not oppress local governments, but the people themselves. Of course, when the government gains control, it is more interested in doing what is beneficial for itself, rather than what is good for the people.
Are you aware that Iran is a colony of joint British-US forces today? In Operation Ajax, Britain and the US forces led a coup against a democratically-elected government, abolishing the elected republic of Iran. Read the news here: "For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhand methods to get rid of a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests."
You see, Democracy was sacrificed here, because it conflicted with British policy. Perhaps you're forgetting that Britain did not "give you" liberty -- your own Indian people were slaughtered openly in the streets. Some were killed by British colonial soldiers, others were killed by Indians hired as police by the British. But don't ever forget, for a single moment, that liberty and Democracy was not "given" by the British to India. It was demanded, and when refused by the government, the Indians fought for it.
Take a look, there's even photographs of the dead bodies: Wikipedia: Royal Indian Navy Mutiny. What a wonderful process of "democratization." And you defend it. Should I really be surprised, then, that you also support the murderers of Capitalism and the child rapists of Catholicism? Apparently, I need to stop being naive and just accept that people really do believe in such murder and child rape as necessary, good, and wholesome. Thank you for waking me up to this realization.
This is what a psychologist would call "an emotional reaction to a situation far in excess of the needs of the situation." You said: "I don't see the revolutionaries rushing to help in Pakistan or Haiti or elsewhere." I showed Che Guevara. You're aware that Cuba, for the small country that it is, provides more physicians for free to underdeveloped nations than both the United States and Great Britain? Of course, all you had to do to know this is look up "healthcare in Cuba" on Wikipedia, and see the twenty references for it.
I'm not holding up either Che Guevara or Cuba as great models for the world. If they can beat the US and Britain at providing humanitarian aid to the world, though, it clearly shows the moral weakness of Capitalism as a loving "colonial power." But, this is an irrational response to these arguments: "...what a bloodthirsty villain he was and how only adolescents (or the perpetually mentally adolescent) still worship his memory."
Ah, the brilliant advice from someone who is an involved activist at the UN. Now you can see why I thought it would be a waste of time to take any complaint to a group of Imperialists.... and, I did not believe it before, but apparently the UN has a faction of sympathizers of child rapists.
Are you aware that gays and lesbians have been prosecuted by the United States government up until the year 2002? Are you aware that World War 2 could not have been won without the efforts of Alan Turing? That's quite a shabby way to treat the man who saved the lives and liberty of all the grandfathers and grandmothers living in the United Kingdom today.
What happened to this great human being who fought the Nazis with a thousand times more strength than any other human being in history? He was arrested, for violation of the "Homosexual Acts," shortly afterwards committing suicide. You don't even know the history of Britain, because that would open up your eyes to some tremendously disturbing fact: you'd be heiling the reich right now if it weren't for a British man who loved to gobble cock. Even though the Axis had the Catholic Church backing them up, it is nothing compared to a militarily-backward country backed up by a homoerotic, computer genius.
I am not a professional historian, that is why I don't contribute to Wikipedia. Both Sati and the caste system are illegal in India, but it takes a long time culturally to abolish these abuses. Settee is no longer practised, but there is the "accidental" burning of brides who don't bring in sufficient dowry, although dowry itself is illegal.
You really need to distinguish between what is illegal and the evil that men (and women) do, e.g. it is illegal to kill but murder still happens. Study the doctrine of Original Sin.
I wish you were right about Iran being a colony of the USA/Britain - then we would not have to worry about it building a nuclear bomb.
And please don't use vulgar language when emailing me. I am a Christian lady - you have probably forgotten or never knew what that means - not a member of your LGBTI cabal.