"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"

Father God, thank you for the love of the truth you have given me. Please bless me with the wisdom, knowledge and discernment needed to always present the truth in an attitude of grace and love. Use this blog and Northwoods Ministries for your glory. Help us all to read and to study Your Word without preconceived notions, but rather, let scripture interpret scripture in the presence of the Holy Spirit. All praise to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Please note: All my writings and comments appear in bold italics in this colour
Showing posts with label Marxism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marxism. Show all posts

Friday, November 22, 2024

Melanie Phillips > The Pope's embrace of evil - brilliant analysis

 

The Pope’s embrace of evil



With his attack on Israel fighting for its life, the pontiff has taken the Vatican backwards into a very dark past

Pope Francis meets Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, 2021

With just a few words, Pope Francis has plunged relations between Jews and Catholics into their worst crisis for decades and undone years of delicate rapprochement.


In a new book published for the Catholic Church’s jubilee year, he wrote:

According to some experts, what is happening in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide. We should investigate carefully to determine whether it fits into the technical definition formulated by jurists and international bodies.

This is far from the first time the Pope has attacked Israel over the war against Hamas and Hezbollah.


In September, he berated Israel for an immoral lack of proportion. “Defence must always be proportionate to the attack,” he said. “When there is something disproportionate, one shows a tendency to dominate which goes beyond what is moral.”


These remarks are deeply troubling. They are the accusations routinely made by the enemies of Israel in the west, and they are shameful on many levels.


The “genocide” claim is as ludicrous as it is monstrous. Genocide is the intentional annihilation of a people. Yet according to the CIA’s World Factbook, the population of the Gaza Strip has grown by 2.02 percent since the October 7 pogrom and the war that has followed.


Far from intending to wipe out the residents of Gaza, the Israel Defence Forces have been shunting them around the Strip in order to get them out of harm’s way as the IDF has pounded Hamas.


The Pope is also wrong about proportionality in warfare. Defensive military action must be proportionate not to any one attack but to the threat posed by the enemy. The threat against Israel is the stated intention to eradicate it from the face of the earth. What does the Pope believe is the proportionate response to that?

If he really is arguing that the response should be identical in scope and nature to the attack, is he therefore proposing that Israel should set out to murder, rape and mutilate 1,200 Gazans as they did to the Israelis on October 7? Or fire tens of thousands of rockets and drones at civilians in Gaza and Lebanon with the intention of murdering them, as Hamas and Hezbollah have done to Israeli civilians for years?


Israel’s military actions are undertaken solely in defence against the genocidal onslaught intended to wipe out Israel and the Jews that’s proclaimed repeatedly by Hamas, Hezbollah and their Iranian puppeteers. To suggest that such self-defence is genocide is cynical linguistic inversion and moral bankruptcy of the highest order.


That’s disturbing enough when it’s articulated across the west. But for the head of the Catholic Church to show himself to be so morally twisted is shocking.


Pope Francis knows perfectly well that the International Court of Justice is currently considering a claim of genocide brought against Israel by South Africa. That utterly spurious claim is based upon the “experts” to whom the Pope refers.

But those aren’t real experts but venomous propagandists, who peddle lies and distortions to delegitimise and destroy Israel in the court of international public opinion.


So why has the Pope lent his support to this vile discourse?


One obvious answer is that he comes from a background of “liberation theology,” which has characterised churches in the developing world for more than half a century.


This thinking politicised religion, casting the church as fighting for the oppressed and dispossessed of the world. But it defined this according to the Marxist division between the powerful and the powerless, which cast the west as the source of oppression and racism, and the developing world as its blameless victims.


This thinking — in the view of all who subscribed to it — turned Israel into an oppressor. In addition, it fused support for the Palestinian Arabs with a return to the ancient Christian heresy of supersessionism.


This was the doctrine that by denying the divinity of Jesus the Jews forfeited God’s love, so that all the promises God made to the Jews, including the land of Israel, were forfeit and transferred instead to the Christians.


Under the influence of Palestinian Christian liberation theology, the updated version held that the Palestinians were now the rightful inheritors of the land and even embodied the suffering Jesus, being crucified all over again by the Jews.


This vicious lie, given the imprimatur of religious doctrine, has made huge inroads in liberal Protestant churches which have replaced religious belief with social activism. Despite the theological differences between Catholics and Protestants, Pope Francis adheres to that as well, deepened by the trend in Catholic thinking after World War II that embraced pacifism and rejected almost any justification for war.


This has led the Pope to use language that makes Jews shudder. When he suggests that the Jews may be guilty of genocide, it’s hard not to hear echoes of his predecessors’ accusation that the Jews were guilty of deicide — the claim that lay behind centuries of Jewish slaughter.


This echo is no accident.


On the first anniversary of the October 7 pogrom in Israel, the Pope used a vicious citation from the Gospels to denounce the evils of war. This was the accusation that the Jews “are from [their] father, the devil,” which for centuries fueled Christian attacks on Jews.


In other words, his attack on Israel is far more than boilerplate liberal hostility to the existence of the Jewish state. It regurgitates the ancient Christian theological hatred of the Jews and the desire to obliterate them.


This pushes the Vatican backwards by several decades. Unlike Protestant churches, the Catholics have made significant attempts from the 1960s onwards to retract their ancient libel against the Jews and express contrition for what the church had done to the Jewish people.


Particularly neuralgic had been the behaviour of Pope Pius XII, who was accused of having failed to speak out publicly against the Nazis and thus made the church an accomplice to the Holocaust.


Now Pope Francis has undone all of that progress.


Yet he has also said good things about Israel and the Jews. In Tablet magazine, Adam Gregerman points out that the Pope has celebrated the change in Catholic thinking about Judaism that meant “enemies and strangers have become friends and brothers”; expressed sadness over Catholics’ past misdeeds against Jews; said “the State of Israel has every right to exist in safety and prosperity”; and insisted that “to attack Jews is antisemitism, but an outright attack on the State of Israel is also antisemitism”.


Responding to a letter from Jewish scholars written in November 2023 expressing deep concern over “the worst wave of antisemitism since 1945,” he said the October 7 atrocities reminded him that the promise “never again” remained relevant, and must be taught and affirmed anew.


So what’s the explanation for the apparent contradiction?


The answer is surely that the Pope is driven entirely by his identification with suffering victims — and since all wars inevitably create victims, he always opposes war. Four days after the October 7 pogrom, he said:

No war is worth the tears of a mother who has seen her child mutilated or killed; no war is worth the loss of the life of even one human being.

He is a consequentialist. Seeing only the awful consequences of war, the cause becomes irrelevant. War to stop a genocide thus becomes as bad as genocide.


That amoral thinking leads him effectively to deny any justification for a just war. He thus inevitably condemns innocent victims of aggression — in this case, the Israelis — to unlimited slaughter, torture and suffering, and ultimately the State of Israel itself to existential destruction.


Believing that war is itself a crime against humanity, he excuses, sanitises and implicitly encourages actual crimes against humanity while anathematising the defence against them.


By believing that this Marxist-derived ideology represents conscience, Pope Francis has made himself an accomplice of evil.

Jewish News Syndicate

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

FARC's Final Weapons Removed 'in Last Breath' of Colombia Conflict

The western hemisphere's longest running war, unless you count American, confederate, white-supremacists, has finally been brought to an end. And just in time for its previously peaceful and prosperous South American neighbour to start a civil war. Nothing good can come of the direction Venezuela has been heading under Maduro, but, at least, there is good progress in Colombia.
Well done, president Santos!
By Andrew V. Pestano  

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos waves at a trucker removing a container of FARC weapons from a disarmament zone on Tuesday. Photo courtesy Juan Manuel Santos

UPI -- Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said the last remaining weapons belonging to revolutionary rebels have been surrendered under the supervision of the United Nations, and will be smelted into peace monuments.

The weapons removal marks a monumental step in the peace process between Bogota and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which had fought for a half-century. The last weapons container was taken out from the Pondores "reincorporation zone" in Colombia's La Guajira province.

"We are more optimistic because the impossible was fulfilled: departure of last container with FARC arms makes its disarmament definitive," Santos said in a statement Tuesday. "Today Colombia is a country without FARC, with presence of the government in the whole territory and opportunities like never before."

"We have just witnessed the final exit of containers with weapons in La Guajira: the last breath of the conflict with the FARC," he added. "Departure of the last container with weapons in peace zones puts an end to the abandonment of arms and [reincorporation] zones, and it initiates a new stage for Colombia."

The rebel group plans to become a fully functioning political party once the disarmament process ends. Key leader Iván Márquez said the former armed guerrilla group will maintain the use of its FARC acronym.

Most FARC members are being housed in so-called "reincorporation zones," in which the Colombian government and non-governmental organizations will help transition the ex-militants into civilian life. Santos' government will use the National Learning Service agency to educate the former militants.

More than 220,000 people died and 5 million were displaced during the Colombian conflict, which began after FARC's Marxist-inspired founding in 1964. The militant rebel group was involved in drug trafficking, kidnapping and other illicit activity to fund the insurgency. Peace talks between Bogota and FARC started in Cuba in 2012.

Officials said FARC's weapons will be smelted into peace monuments that will be displayed in Bogota, New York City and Havana, Cuba.


Friday, June 30, 2017

Tories Accuse Left-Wing Students of ‘Voting Twice’ in General Election

What? No Russian link? Or is Corbyn the Russian link? Aha!


Senior Tories are accusing left-wing youngsters of breaking the law during the general election, with claims they cast their vote twice.

The government has signaled it will be reviewing electoral rules amid reports of students boasting on social media about casting their vote twice – once in their home constituency and again in their university town.

Under the current system, people are allowed to register to vote in two different places, but it is a criminal offence to vote twice.

The Tories suffered a blow in the general election, losing their 17-seat working majority, forcing leader Theresa May to sign a deal with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to help prop up a minority administration. 

It is thought that an unusually high turnout among young voters gave May’s Labour opponents a significant boost. Now senior Tories are suggesting Labour benefitted from voter fraud. 

Former Tory leadership contender Andrea Leadsom told MPs there is a need to investigate any potential abuse of the democratic system.

Leadsom was responding to Wellingborough MP Peter Bone, who claimed left-leaning students had announced on social media they had voted twice in the June 8 election.

“It has been brought to my attention that people can be registered to vote in a general election in two places.

“I am registered in London and in my constituency,” Bone said, according to the Daily Express.

“However, a number of students are bragging on social media that they voted not only where they live, but where they go to university. That is an abuse, so could we have a statement from the Cabinet Office on that matter next week?”

Bone also said an investigation is needed to verify whether groups such as Momentum, a grassroots Labour campaign, could be behind students’ double voting.

Responding to Bone, Leadsom said: “We must get to the bottom of people deliberately voting twice, which I understand is illegal. 

“We need to investigate that and ensure that parliamentary democracy, for which this country has been famous—this is indeed the mother of all Parliaments—upholds the rights of one person and one vote.”

The accusation against young voters, however, was first raised by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

In an interview with US media, Farage said voters had been so attracted by Labour’s “Marxist” policies that they voted for its leader twice.

Farage said the reason why so many people are flocking to Labour is that they are yet to understand the implications of Marxism. He claimed they had been lured by Jeremy Corbyn’s socialist promises, such as the scrapping of university tuition fees.

“Marxism is very appealing if you’ve never been exposed to it before or seen what history has done with it,” said Farage.

“Corbyn went around saying to our students ‘look, I will wipe away all your tuition fees, I will promise you a land where there’ll be money for this, and money for that, and it’ll all be absolutely lovely’ and young people were very attracted by it.”


Friday, August 19, 2016

The Man Behind Venezuela’s Economic Mess & Chavez's Stinking Rich Daughter

Maduro Places Confidence in a Spanish Marxist Professor He Calls
'the Jesus Christ of the Economy'

"The fact that the government continues to insist with the XXI century socialism can be attributed to A Alfredo Serrano (Misión verdad)
“The fact that the government continues to insist on 21 century socialism can be attributed to Alfredo Serrano” (Misión verdad)

The main culprits of the most radical measures taken by the Venezuelan government come from Spanish politician Alfredo Serrano Mancilla, according to Spanish Adviser to President Nicolás Maduro Deputy Carlos Valero.

Valero told the newspaper ABC in Spain that Serrano “is the author of the latest and most radical economic measures undertaken by the Chavistas, who have only managed to impoverish the country.”

Expropriations, the seizure of businesses, “urban agriculture” on balconies, the soviet supply system and forced employment in the public agriculture sector are all a result of Serrano’s influence.

Earlier this year, the newspaper El Nacional reported about “Alfredo Serrano Mancilla, the Spaniard who pulls the strings of the Venezuelan economy.” The newspaper pointed out the Podemos member is one of the most influential figures in Maduro’s economic cabinet.

“The fact that the government continues to insist on the economic model of socialism in the 21st century, despite the queues, shortages and inflation is entirely from him,” the paper claimed.

Mancilla “is the last redoubt that the Spanish populist left keeps in Venezuela,” according to ABC.

He is the coordinator of the Center for Political and Social Studies (CEPS), a Spanish anti-capitalist organization that provides political consulting. He has consulted for the governments of Spain, Venezuela, Ecuador, El Salvador and Bolivia. CEPS is currently listed as an “appendix” of Podemos. Several of its leaders operate within the Spanish leftist party (most notably Podemos leaders Pablo Iglesias and Iñigo Errejón).

Mancilla studied economics in Barcelona, Spain and in Quebec, Canada. He arrived in Venezuela 10 years ago with a group of leftist Spanish teachers (Juan Carlos Monedero, Pablo Iglesias, Luis Alegre, Roberto Viciano Pastor) who were attracted to the idealistic thought of Hugo Chavez.

Mancilla began a friendly relationship with the Marxist political intelligentsia of Venezuela until meeting with then-Planning Minister Ricardo Menendez, after which he began rubbing shoulders with even more important higher-ups.

In 2014, he presented the paper The Economic thought of Hugo Chavez, for which President Nicolás Maduro praised him and introduced him to the elite of the regime. Mancilla immediately became an advisor to Maduro.

From there, Mancilla became a kind of ideologue of Chavismo. He wrote speeches for President Maduro, including the most important ones presented to the National Assembly.

Mancilla, according to El Nacional, has solidified the idea that the socialist economic model of the 21st century is unquestionable, and that any failure is the result of attacks from the opposition.

That sounds like Marxist paranoia to me.

“Clinging to the hope of an economic miracle to save his country, Maduro has placed his trust in a dark Spanish Marxist professor whom he calls ‘the Jesus Christ of the economy,'” The Wall Street Journal recently reported.

ABC noted Alfredo Serrano Mancilla is the man behind the Maduro’s constant refusal to allow humanitarian aid into Venezuela.

“Serrano said he wanted to hide the crisis and not allow the entry of humanitarian aid. Even NGOs like Doctors Without Borders cannot act in Venezuela without asking permission from authorities.”



Chávez’s Daughter Is Filthy Rich,
and That Shouldn’t Be a Surprise

Inequality in Socialist Venezuela Is a Feature, Not a Bug

The accumulated wealth of Hugo Chávez's daughter is not the result of covert capitalism.
The accumulated wealth of Hugo Chávez's daughter is not the result of covert capitalism. 
(Albaciudad)

By Ezequiel Spector

Español - The alleged fortune of María Gabriela Chávez, daughter of the late Hugo Chávez, has recently stirred up controversy in Venezuela. Media reports suggest that Chávez’s daughter has US$4.2 billion stored in bank accounts in the United States and Andorra, which might make her the wealthiest person in Venezuela.

Critics have pointed to a supposed inconsistency: how can one support the so-called Bolivarian Revolution while enjoying such enormous riches? However, the premise of this critique is flawed, because it assumes that Chavismo emerged to uphold rights and equality.

In countries like Venezuela, the inequality between crony politicians and common citizens is evident. The first group enjoys considerable privileges, while the latter struggles to avoid drowning in a sea of inflation, shortages, and unemployment. The ruling class’s friends can travel and have access to foreign goods. Common Venezuelans must make do with “shopping” at mostly empty supermarkets.

But make no mistake, Venezuelan leaders are not covert capitalists. Their wealth does not come from outperforming their competitors in the provision of superior, affordable goods and services. It is not the result of taking risks and investing their own capital.

They are rich because the government has awarded them privileges and subsidies, at the expense of the average citizen. That’s 21st-century socialism’s social mobility. They don’t want capitalism, since their socialist system has already made them quite comfortable.

When defenders of the republic call for separation of powers, an independent judiciary, a nonpartisan central bank, and respect for civil liberties, they don’t do it out of a whim or to advance some abstract theory.

They do it because, among other things, they know that is the path to economic progress. They are aware that when those values are upheld, poverty and unemployment rates decrease, upward social mobility picks up, and individual potential is unleashed. They also realize that high concentration of power occur when those values are undermined.

Australians, Canadians, and Swedes are not inherently better than Latin Americans. The wealth of nations has nothing to do with national character. It comes down to institutional frameworks: some choose to promote trade, rule of law, and republican values, and others give their leaders absolute power.

The defense of republican values and individual liberties is not some foreign concept, divorced from citizenship. It is the defense of citizens themselves, and the economic elite in Venezuela know it. That’s why they choose to keep their fortunes in republican countries, where they know there is no authoritarian ruler that will arbitrarily take it all away.

However, they don’t apply that knowledge to the Latin American countries where they grew up. If they did, an open economy would not allow them to live so comfortably; they would have to compete in a free market.

They reject capitalism not because they think it is inherently unjust, but because they are well aware that it is the only system that would put their talents to the test. And that is something which they greatly fear.

María Gabriela Chávez’s alleged wealth, and other inequalities present in Venezuela, are not anomalies, or symptoms of a “poorly implemented” socialist system. They are, in fact, the inevitable consequences of socialism.

That is a lesson Latin America has yet to learn.


Ezequiel Spector is a lawyer, PhD candidate, and professor at the University Torcuato Di Tella. He was also a visiting scholar at the University of Arizona and the Charles III University of Madrid. Follow @ezspector.