Che Guevara and George Washington

I know I'm all over the map with so many issues coming to light all at once but I wanted to comment on a new movie out in two parts about the life of Che Guevara. Now it's hard not to watch the movie and feel an admiration for the guy which might explain his rock star popularity with some. Yet one is forced to wonder how real that movie was. Many see him as a murderer and terrorist. Now just because many see him as that doesn't mean he was that. I'm just skeptical of both sides of the story because both are biased.

The movie showed many noble qualities. Difficult to know if any of these really existed or if it was just fiction. Letting the enemy surrender and go free after giving up their arms. Not participating in rape or torture. Paying for supplies from the pheasants not stealing them. A Communist buying supplies. That in itself seems to be an oxymoron but I will concede that if that is what he was like, then one must admire and respect him even if one does not agree with his revolution.

I want to emphasize that with all my rhetoric about American corruption I am not anti American. On the contrary, I admire the U.S. Constitution and hold it up as a sacred inspired document. The difference between American corruption and Communist corruption is that we hear about American corruption and are allowed to talk about it. In Communist dictatorships, one is not allowed to talk about their corruption. In all fairness, one is not allowed to talk about corruption in a Capitalist dictatorship either. The key word here is dictatorship. A left wing dictator is no better or worse than a right wing dictator.

I will concede that corruption within the Batista government made the climate for a revolution in Cuba ideal. People rebel against oppression. Please note that Fulgencio Batista is referred to as the U.S. backed dictator before the Cuban revolution. I again emphasize the term dictator. If the U.S. constitution provides for the common defense, promotes the general welfare and secures the blessings of liberty, then it should not be backing any dictator period. That violates liberty.

Funny how in practice the U.S. secret services seems to obsess over providing for the common defense yet turns a blind eye to liberty when it repeatedly supports dictators who are friendly to the U.S. and oppose dictators who are not friendly to the U.S. The CIA needs to be mandated to protect the Constitution not profits.

I am told Che was part Irish. It reminds me of being in Belfast when a friend gave me a James Connolly pin. I was genuinely touched and asked who he was. The mother responded with a twinkle in her eye, "He was a rebel. He was a Communist." Interesting to note that James Connolly was of Scottish origin and came to Ireland to help with their struggle. He was one of the brave men that signed the Irish Proclamation and took the Post Office in Dublin from the British by force and was executed along with the others who signed the Proclamation.

I contend and submit that the Irish Proclamation is also a sacred inspired document. I was surprised to see a Communist sign a declaration protecting democracy, religious liberty and free speech. It reminded me of working at the post office with a friend who thought I was a Communist for the same reason I thought he wasn't - we both believed in democracy and free speech. I found that somewhat ironic.

My understanding of Communism was that it was the direct opposite of democracy and free speech. Most concede that Stalin, China and East Berlin are bad examples of Communism. They are in essence dictatorships. It is my understanding that the Communist Manifesto is framed with the intent of building those types of empires. Yet I have met many others who call themselves communists who aspire to other things.

Suffice it to say that tyranny rises and falls as people rally against ignorance and fear to claim their unalienable rights to liberty and human rights. While those who aspire to something higher, those who have a social conscience are to be admired. Yet we must be vigilant in recognizing that the end does not justify the means and the minute we apostatize from those higher ideals and dishonour it with cowardice, inhumanity or rapine, we have lost the dream and fall subject to the very corruption we set out to oppose.

Che put all his faith in Fidel and turned all the power over to him. George Washington had his faith in the constitution and turned his power over to the people like Russel Crow in the Gladiator. Many of my friends at the Post Office claim Cuba is the best model of socialism we have. I disagree. The best model for socialism we have is the Kibbutz movement in Israel. People are free to go or stay and they are free to be a religious kibbutz or nonreligious. Socialist principles must be voluntary. As soon as we force them and remove individual rights, we walk the path of dictatorship and become exactly what the revolution was created to oppose.

Fidel's Cuba fell in some ways since it held so many political prisoners. As soon as he gained power he created a Marxist Leninist atheist state. Now we can all argue until the cows come home about the extremists in religion. Yet there are extremists in every walk of life including politics, trade unions and corporations. We can't ban free speech and the freedom of association. That is wrong. Yet it's hard to keep people when a lawyer makes more money opening a bed and breakfast than practicing law. Nevertheless, throwing people in prison for disagreeing or for speaking out is wrong.

I remember reading in a book Fidel on Religion where Fidel was asked if he had Christian Marxists helping him in the revolution. He said certainly we didn't ask people what religion they were. Yet he admitted that after benefiting from their assistance he knowingly created an atheist state when he got power. Unlike in Russia or China people were allowed to have a religion, they just weren't allowed to hold office if they did. A watered down form of dictatorial Communism but wrong nonetheless.

BTW it was Alexander Solzhenitsyn who exposed that Lenin was not the founder of the Russian Revolution. He was a politician who seized power once the revolution took hold and ended up ordering machine guns to fire on striking trade unionists once he gained power. Eliminating once again the very people he exploited to get power. A common occurrence with many revolutions. Political opportunists.

Canada Deports Former KGB Agent

This story has been going on for a while now. Students rally to keep the family of a former KGB agent from being deported: http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=25abcd46-d135-40dd-b407-5baecc10d73e

Are they going to deport all the NSA and CIA Agents? They should. The CIA has sold a lot more drugs than the KGB ever did. Leave the family alone. Let them stay.

The Cuban Model

People tell me that Cuba is the best practical model of effective Socialism that we have. Trudeau’s son, not the elected MP to save the liberal party from the brink of ruin but his other son, wrote papers singing Castro's praise. Listening to both those positions I’m left to ask, are you on crack?

Castro was a dictator. He held political prisoners of conscience and don’t dare compare that to the States. The States is getting bad but Cuba is very different. Political prisoners falls within their mandate. Political prisoners in the States violates their constitution.

Cuba was a crappy model of socialism. Lawyers in Cuba make more money at a bed and breakfast for tourists so they are giving up their profession to open a bed and breakfast. A system without incentive is somewhat problematic indeed.

The Kibbutz movement in Israel is a much better model of socialism. It is based on democracy and free will. Old style Communism is not. It is mandated to remove democracy for the sake of the great good, which is a self defeating axiom.

On a Kibbutz you are free to stay and free to leave. You don’t earn a wage per say, profits form the kibbutz go to improve the standard of living for everyone on the kibbutz. They are governed by the voice of the people. If the people want to be a religious kibbutz they may. If they want to be a nonreligious kibbutz they may. Democracy is protected in that system.

Despite the fact that I feel Cuba is not the best model for functioning socialism, I do think the Helms Burton law is draconian. Why boycott Cuba and do business with China who has a far worse human rights record.

Although I do see old style Communism as a threat still, Communists have a right to be Communists. If a Communist country exists and they mind their own business without invading another country then fine so be it. If their human rights violations escalate then don’t do business with them. It really is that simple.

Russia is still a threat but...

The US is not the only country with corruption nor is it the only country that has performed false flag attacks. Russia has done false flag attacks as well. Russia has corruption too. The only difference is that in a democratic system we hear about the corruption and are allowed to talk about it. http://finiansworld.blogspot.com/2008/09/faked-military-attacks-russia.html

People aren’t allowed to talk about government corruption in China. Look at their passion to win public opinion during the Beijing Olympics. They even faked the fireworks and opening song just so they would look good. Now it’s all about PR and fooling the masses. Thus the term, the first casualty of war is the truth. http://finiansworld.blogspot.com/2008/08/mao-beijing.html

As soon as Obama is elected, Russia moves missiles into position. Is this a Cuba deja vu or is it simply recording their dissent over NATO missiles in the Ukraine. Let’s face it, the US were rightfully concerned about Russia putting missiles in Cuba. Likewise Russia has a right to be concerned if NATO puts missiles in the Ukraine. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5090077.ece

.

What are they thinking? Are they trying to instigate conflict or avoid it? It would also depend on what kind of missiles they wanted to put there, offensive or defensive. Missiles that can shoot down missiles are better than missiles that simply do damage. However, I don’t see how it would be possible to put defense missiles in place and not be able to use those missiles for offensive strikes. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3788942,00.html

.

The purpose of the "Defense Shield" is not to protect North America but to protect countries in Europe. If Israel wants defense missiles give them defense missiles but to place "Defense" missiles in all those former soviet countries is clearly an antagonistic act. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/03/nato.members/

.

What if NATO puts all those missiles in place and those countries revert? Could not those missiles then be used against us? Who other than the arms dealers and the CIA benefit from selling arms and promoting conflict? http://bx.businessweek.com/defense-industry/pentagon-seeks-7b-missile-sale-to-uae/15218489874394099870-c72ac764c466698314c6e53d602c30bb/

.

Russia leasing nuclear subs to India is a bit of a concern. Nuclear subs are a double edge sword. If you have a nuclear sub in your waters and you blow it up, then you have to deal with the radiation. Yet letting a nuclear sub roam around your waters with nuclear missiles in somewhat problematic. http://www.ptinews.com/pti/ptisite.nsf/0/2ABD5BE21A585450652574FE004DB660?OpenDocument

The EU mandated to build armies without protection of human rights is somewhat of a concern as well. Nevertheless, we do have to take the board out of our own eye before we take the speck out of our neighbour’s eye. Bush was a big board but the CIA is clearly the root of the problem, which remains and continues to cause serious problems.

First they came for the Communists...

WWI and WWII were against Fascism, which is what the Bush administration was rapidly approaching with the introduction of the Patriot Act. I am not a Christian Marxist but I do have a social conscience. We can’t obsess over Fascism to the point of ignoring Communism any more than we can obsess over Communism to the point of ignoring Fascism. We need to shun extremism.

Martin Niemoller’s poem starts off with First they came for the Communists. Then they came for the Jews. Then they came for the trade unionists. Then they came for the Catholics. Then they came for me. First they came for the Communists. Although old style Communists will exploit every socialist and trade unionist to accomplish their tyrannical goal, not all Communists support tyranny.

In fact the ideal of true Communism is to oppose tyranny. As I’ve said before, I had a friend at the Post office who thought I was a Communist for the same reason I thought he wasn’t – we both believed in democracy and free speech. Some obsess over Capitalism and claim that is a democratic society so we need to remove democracy to overcome Capitalism. Not so.

Capitalism is not Democracy it is a condition that rises in a democratic system. Not all Capitalism is bad. Prospering from the fruit of your own labour is good. Greed and exploitation is bad but Capitalism in itself is not. Likewise abandoning social justice out of a homophobic fear of Communism is equally insane. Just because someone wants affordable Medicare and has compassion for the elderly and the homeless does not make them a Communist. If it does, then yes I am a Communist. However, my definition goes beyond that.

Social justice is a Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Sikh value. If Communism outlaws religion then social justice is bigger than Communism. Social justice is bigger than Capitalism because Corporate greed cares nothing about social justice. They obsess over profits above anything else. I would agree that Imperialism is wrong. That form of exploitation was practiced by England, France and Spain for many years.

Having said all that, notwithstanding the corruption in the CIA and the Bush administration, old style Communism still is a threat as well.

Corruption infiltrates good in many different ways.
That is the second law of thermodynamics.

Stereotypes

I had a good friend at Canada Post who thought I was a Communist for the same reason I thought he wasn’t – we both believe in democracy and free speech. A Communist believing in democracy and free speech? Is that not an oxymoron? Perhaps not. Perhaps a true Communist and a true Conservative have common ground.

I agree with the ultra conservatives about preserving the constitution, fiscal responsibility, democracy and free speech. I agree with the Communists ideals of social justice if maintained within the framework of a constitution preserving democracy and free speech. Can we really have both? Yes we can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

Mao Beijing

Well I must admit, China has an amazing culture. Human rights violations are being swept under the carpet as we sit back and enjoy the splendor of the Olympic games. The swimming facility is amazing. To think that was built all by donations from Chinese living outside China. Somewhat ironic for a Communist country to receive a wonderful facility paid for by capitalist donations.

.

.

OK so the fireworks were faked:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26139005/

As well as the song for the opening Olympics:

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080812%2foly_fireworks_080812

Image isn’t everything. Nevertheless, when one sees the splendor of China one must ask what freedoms don’t they have. Surely they are free to work, earn a wage and spend that money how they see fit. What freedoms that we have could they possibly be denied? http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/hr_facts.html

Free Speech is the obvious one and religious freedom seems to be another. What do you mean you can’t practice a religion? Why not? Why can’t Communist ideals of the common good exist without removing individual rights and turning everyone into robots.

One PR spokesman said that in the West the emphasis on individual freedom is seen in the East as selfishness. The materialistic drive to put one’s needs above your neighbor’s. Interesting analogy indeed and surely it has some merit, yet one wonders how deep the rabbit hole goes.

We all remember the student protests at Red Square that resulted in a massacre. One of the protesters said stop killing my people. Who’s being killed? Stalin and Hitler hid their death camps. Are the Chinese Communists doing the same?

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573064/tiananmen_square_protest.html

I don’t know much about Mao other than China’s Communism was modeled after Russia which was based on the Communist Mafefesto which I feel is flawed. Mao’s little Red Book I will address in another thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotations_from_Chairman_Mao_Zedong

During the TELUS dispute at the boot I often saw Chinese Canadians holding signs and handing out literature about a long list of murder and atrocities committed by the Chinese Communist government on it’s people. To their credit I’m going to have to dig a bit deeper into the facts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no1KbBOsMds&feature=related

As we remember the tank man and the subsequent massacre at Red Square, let’s find out what he was talking about and make a clear distinction between Chinese Communism and Chinese culture.

Chinese culture is so much more that Communism. It existed before Communism and will continue without it. but perhaps an understanding of Chinese culture can help us enrich our understanding and quest for a better world for all of us not just us as individuals.

A New Manifesto

I was discussing what I felt were the flaws within the Communist Manifesto with a friend at the Post Office a few years ago. He responded by saying "Well if you think you can do better why don’t you write one?" Great idea says me. That night I did. This is a copy of what I gave him the next day.

Trade Unionism is the hub in the Labour Movement wheel. The historical origin of the Trade Union was consistent with the origin of the Manifesto. It was born during the industrial revolution and the exploitation of wage labour.

Historically, life in the factories was outrageous. Exploitation of child labour was common. Long hours, bad working conditions, enhanced with bad wages and nonexistent rights and benefits created an employer’s dream and an employee’s nightmare.

That was long ago and thanks to Trade Unions and collective bargaining, wages, rights and working conditions have greatly improved. Trade Unionism began to expand and diversify promoting a broader and universal quest for social justice. This quest was tied to the Manifesto.

Many in the public sector saw Unions as greedy and lazy having out lived their original purpose. Having lost sight of their founding purpose, Unions became distracted with extreme causes becoming completely out of touch with the workers they were created to represent.

Then came free trade and the global economy. Big Corporations were no longer happy with profits, they became obsessed with a steady increase in profits which was needed to satisfy the ever increasing demands of the shareholder and foreign investment. As a result, large Corporations launched another industrial revolution exploiting wage labour.

Full time positions were converted into part time position preventing large Corporations from having to pay employee benefits. Cost of living continued to rise while wages were rolled back. Competing with a global economy became the perpetual rationalization that large Corporations needed to continue to downsize and lay off employees in times of record profits.

The essence of the problem we now face is not rooted in class struggle. It is rooted with listing large Corporations on the stock market. Originally the purpose of the stock market was to help new companies find working capital. Continuing to list large Corporations on the stock market will be dangerous for two reasons.

Investors want a high return on their investment. Wages, workloads and working conditions in a company are of no concern to the investor who simply wants a high return on their investment. This creates the climate where profits are not good enough. Companies need to create increased profits on a regular basis to maintain its investor’s interest. When large numbers of investors sell their shares and invest in another portfolio this puts a company in an artificial crisis situation where it is forced to downsize.

The modern stock market is one step above the casinos. It is not driven by class struggle, it is driven by greed and speculation. Insider trading, hot tips and artificial hype create a very unstable market. Owning a casino would be a much safer investment. The stock market has no concern for social justice despite the political attempts to create ethical funds. The stock market is not a place of mutual advancement where all who participate benefit from the fruits of honest labour.

The founding premise of the new Manifesto is not that the history of all conflict in the world is based on class struggle. The new Manifesto concurs that the history of all struggle is based on greed and speculation. Greed and oppression can plague left wing or right wing politics indiscriminately. To assume that one is right and the other is wrong is very narrow minded.

The people want a balance between fiscal responsibility and social justice. Social justice that is not fiscally responsible will run out of money. Fiscal responsibility that runs out of social justice will lose public support. It’s that simple.

People want balance. People need balance. The environment, the food chain, the entire ecosystem is one of balance. When one species becomes extinct the whole system becomes unbalanced. The second premise of the new Manifesto is Diversity makes us strong.

The age old idea that if we eliminate classes, religions and different opinions, we will no longer have anything to fight about and thereby establish peace is simply wrong because the end does not justify the means. The Manifesto cannot exist if human rights are not entrenched in it.

The old Manifesto taught that the people did not know what was in their best interest and big brother needed to make the decisions for them. The logical dilemma for the old Manifesto is that you cannot eliminate human rights and freedoms to create a system where all people prosper simply because where there is no justice, there will be no peace.

To strip away human rights and freedoms is unjust. Where there is no justice there is no peace. Therefore the Manifesto must respect human rights and seek justice. To this end we have the second premise of the new Manifesto which is Diversity makes us strong.

Women have a right to form a women’s caucus but may not force members to join it. Men have the right to form a caucus, Gays and Lesbians, Christians, Atheists, Jews, Muslims any unique collective has the right to form a caucus and should not be discriminated against. Tied to the second premise is free speech, freedom of association and freedom from discrimination regardless of race, colour, creed, gender or gender preference.

The primary objective of Trade Unionism was and is, free collective bargaining. As Corporations get leaner and meaner Unions need to become streamline and focused. Focused on their mandate to democratically represent their members in the free collective bargaining process.

Any global quests for social justice will fall short if Trade Unions lose sight of their founding purpose in representing their members in the free collective bargaining process. Nevertheless, Trade Unions and free collective bargaining provide a necessary checks and balances within a democratic system. Streamlined Trade Unions are needwd now more than ever.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Alexander Solzhenitsyn passed away on Sunday at the age of 89.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7540038.stm

He was the Russian author who won the Nobel Peace Prize for some of his works exposing Stalin’s death camps. He had personal letters intercepted and was imprisoned for criticizing Stalin in a private letter while serving in the military. Talk about big brother reading your mail. Kinda like Darren Entwistle intercepting private E-mail and using it as evidence in the Bob Varaleau Decision: http://darrenentwistle.com/telusidol/new_telus_idol_conspiracies.htm

In my Solzhenitsyn tribute I’m going to cite four beasts and compare their similarities Perhaps they’re just three beasts and the last one has two heads. First, in Solzhenitsyn’s honour, let’s cite the Russian beast and I’m not referring to Rasputin. I’m referring to Communism under the hands of Stalin and Lenin. No not John, Vladimir. John Lennon’s song Imagine wasn’t evil, just wishful thinking.

After Stalin’s many death camps were exposed, many started to draw a line between Stalin and Lenin. Some said that Stalin’s death camps were to be minimized for the greater good of the cause and Lenin was much better. Not. Solzhenitsyn exposed Lenin for what he was - an opportunist who took over the revolution by murdering the real workers hero then sent in the machine guns on the striking trade unionists when they started to protest. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7/SolzhenitsynWarning.php

My father used to always say that Communism works in theory but doesn’t work in practice. That’s a good quote for a kid to cite without really understanding what it means. Here’s the deal; there are many ideals within Marxism, Communism, and Socialism that are noble and good. Social justice is good but the end does not justify the means. I have spoken about my feelings about what I see as the major flaws within the Communist manifesto and will repost it in a separate thread.

I define Communism under the hands of Stalin and Lenin the second beast. China’s Communism I’m going to have to address separately. The first beast is of course, a dictator from the other side of the fence, Fascism under the hands of Hitler and Mussolini using Machiavelli's The Prince as a model.

I remember dating a German girl once and was worried about what my father would say. He was from a different generation so he was. He volunteered when he was under age for WW II and his father was wounded with mustard gas under the hands of the Germans in the trenches of WW I. I was worried what he would say when he found out I was dating a German girl. His response was simple; "The war is over isn’t it?"

What Hitler did was horrific. What was done to the Jews in the death camps and the ovens was horrific. Denying that happened is offensive nonsense. A desire to return to that kind of genocide is a declaration of war. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that most in Germany at the time did not know what was going on in the death camps. It started with segregation. When the ruthlessness of the Nazis was revealed many speculated what was happening but by then it was too late to stop it.

The third beast I will cite, the one with the two heads is that of the Corporation and the second head is that of the Bush Administration and the Pentagon. I say Bush Administration despite the fact that it started before him and will continue after him. His small face is the one that the public sees. The real head is hidden by the CIA: http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf

Without diving into all the evidence, I will submit that the Pentagon and the Bush Administration are tied to the profit driven corporation. They have become mercenaries not for the common defense but for the almighty dollar. Idolatry at it’s peak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CKmVXRLziY

In the American’s defense I will say that I completely support the U.S. Constitution. I believe that is an inspired document and that the Communist manifesto is inherently flawed. Nevertheless, there are noble ideals within some forms of Marxism and there is practical corruption within the American system. Apathy is one of the root causes of the failure of that system, which demonstrates that those who never fought for freedom shall never know the taste of it.