"Those souls who during the war have served the poor and have been in the Red Cross Mission work, their services are accepted at the Kingdom of God and are the cause of their everlasting life. Convey to them these glad tidings."
-- `Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Bahá, p.116

Exclusivistic views of God's grace are not becoming the Creator of all humanity.

"Those souls who during the war have served the poor and have been in the Red Cross Mission work, their services are accepted at the Kingdom of God and are the cause of their everlasting life. Convey to them these glad tidings."
-- `Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Bahá, p.116

Exclusivistic views of God's grace are not becoming the Creator of all humanity.

"Those souls who during the war have served the poor and have been in the Red Cross Mission work, their services are accepted at the Kingdom of God and are the cause of their everlasting life. Convey to them these glad tidings."
-- `Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Bahá, p.116

Exclusivistic views of God's grace are not becoming the Creator of all humanity.

"Those souls who during the war have served the poor and have been in the Red Cross Mission work, their services are accepted at the Kingdom of God and are the cause of their everlasting life. Convey to them these glad tidings."
-- `Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Bahá, p.116

Exclusivistic views of God's grace are not becoming the Creator of all humanity.

"Those souls who during the war have served the poor and have been in the Red Cross Mission work, their services are accepted at the Kingdom of God and are the cause of their everlasting life. Convey to them these glad tidings."
-- `Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Bahá, p.116

Exclusivistic views of God's grace are not becoming the Creator of all humanity.

"Those souls who during the war have served the poor and have been in the Red Cross Mission work, their services are accepted at the Kingdom of God and are the cause of their everlasting life. Convey to them these glad tidings."
-- `Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Bahá, p.116

Exclusivistic views of God's grace are not becoming the Creator of all humanity.

"Those souls who during the war have served the poor and have been in the Red Cross Mission work, their services are accepted at the Kingdom of God and are the cause of their everlasting life. Convey to them these glad tidings."
-- `Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Bahá, p.116

Exclusivistic views of God's grace are not becoming the Creator of all humanity.

America has a one-party system masquerading as two. Conservatism is the class consciousness of the oppressor. Liberalism is the false consciousness of the oppressed. They are, taken together, the two sides of one oppressive coin - parties to a culture war whose only victor is continued oppression.



Left Radicalism, on the other hand, is the class consciousness of the oppressed. The thesis (conservatism) x the antithesis (liberalism) = the synthesis (radicalism).



Although Islámic and other religious terrorisms cannot be tolerated by the international community, talk of a war on terrorism puts the cart before the horse. Our primary focus should be on the root causes of religious terrorism, not on its violent consequences.



Rather than a war on global terrorism, our first fight must be a war on global poverty through international socialism. Secondly, we must struggle against the forces of nationalism and establish a universal federal, rather than unitary, system of global governance.



Once basic human needs are satisfied and the nation is subordinated to a global state, the blight of terrorism, which thrives under the banes of economic oppression and ethnic inequality, will be mostly eliminated.



A case in point is the contemporary apartheid between Israel and Palestine where, reminiscent of both the ghettoization of the European ancestors of many of the Israelis and of the previous establishment of racial homelands in South Africa, the building of white collar settlements in underclass occupied territories continues largely unabated.



While Islámic terrorism is never excusable, it is, given the cultural imperialism or hegemony of the West, explainable. In the current climate of globalization, which misuses the universalistic spirit of the age to justify the expansion of global markets and to satisfy capitalist greed, terrorism is frequently directed at perceived symbols of the military-industrial complex.



Good and evil are matters of degree, not political typologies. They exist in all of us, and in all countries. However, the contemporary bifurcation of the world into good and evil, recalling references to the former Soviet Union as the evil empire, ignores the extent to which injustice, or domestic terrorism, is tolerated in one of the Western world's most corrupt nations, the United States.



American terrorism takes such forms as opportunistic and ever-shifting foreign policies, the imposition of particularistic U.S. values and cultural constructs of freedom on the global South and other poor nations, and a market-driven medical establishment which leaves many of its own citizens with inadequate, sometimes nonexistent, health care.



If our planet had a just, socialized global economy, religious terrorism would take care of itself. Unfortunately, our present war against, largely Islámic fundamentalist or Wahabbí, terrorist agencies, while of some benefit, is, precisely because of what it fails to address, an insult to the majority of the earth's peoples and to their rights to economic and political equity.



In the specific case of Afghanistan, its liberation from al-Qa'ída and the Taliban was simply a byproduct of the so-called war on terrorism. U.S. Administrative compassion was little more than political expediency. Moreover, al-Qa'ída (neo-Wahabbism) would never have come to dominate the Taliban had it not been for that country's abandonment by the U.S. (and the West in general).



In December 2001, Bill O'Reilly, the ugly American "star" of Fascist Fox (Fox News Channel, in the U.S.), said to an Afghan official, "Americans don't care about who governs Afghanistan. We just want to get Usama bin Lawdin." Passing Larry King Live, on CNN, Fox's The O'Reilly Factor has become the most popular American cable news program.



As long as the world's only superpower, the U.S., is allowed to dictate the shape of world order, its character will likely remain unstable.







We need, it seems to me, a new liberation theology which will transform conventional religion from a tool of the oppressive class consciousness of the capitalist establishment and from the false consciousness of reform, characteristic of the religion of the oppressed, to a revolutionary spiritual class consciousness of the oppressed - a grass-roots liberation theology.



In plain speech, what I am suggesting is the following:



1. The differences between the two major parties are so insignificant that it would not be too far off the mark to say that we have a one-party system.



2. Conservatism allows those in power, the military-industrial complex (capitalism or the free market system), to justify their actions. It is the belief system of oppression.



3. Liberalism gives false hope to the oppressed by promising to reform an oppressive system (capitalism or the free market system). Thus, it discourages the masses from rebelling against capitalism.



4. Left radicalism is a way of thinking which, if adopted by the oppressed, would encourage them to revolt against capitalism.



5. The new liberation theology I am referring to would be the transformation of religion from an instrument of the capitalist oppressors to a tool of spiritual revolution.



The two-party system virtually assures that we will never have anything like what happened in the former Soviet Union. Third parties are prevented from having any meaningful impact on American politics.



Personally, I am a social radical and a moral conservative. However, our two-party system has made it appear that my perspective would be contradictory. As I see it, my collectivistic views and the essentially opposite ones of the libertarians are both more internally consistent than either liberalism or conservatism.



The anarchists (Buchanin et al.) believe that government is, by definition, oppressive. Personally, I would make a distinction between oppression and social control. The main issue in oppression is social stratification, or institutionalized social inequality, not power in itself.



I would not call oppression what is beneficial to the majority. For that reason, I reject the possibility of so-called reverse discrimination.



It seems to me that people should develop through the normal struggles we all experience - not given a special measure of them by an oppressor caste (men, whites, the able-bodied, etc.). Note that, in referring to an "oppressor caste," I have in mind groups and not individuals.



Liberalism is destructive.. However, I think that liberalism feeds on that destruction and also contains the seeds of its own destruction. Liberalism is reactionary.



I do not agree that conservatives as necessarily afraid of change. I think it is much more complex than that. Obviously, those who championed the so-called Reagan revolution were not afraid of change. Of course, that didn't make it any less evil.



Not only conservatives, but many liberals also want to return to the past.. For instance, many would like to return the Johnson and Nixon's "Great Society" program.



Many, sadly, are proposing psychological solutions to social (sociological) problems, i.e., laziness, fear, or lack of self-esteem. As I see it, the greatest barriers to change are oppression and injustice.



Capitalism is inherently unfair. Any "fairness" to the system has been a result of an infusion of socialism, i.e., medicare, medicaid, food stamps, SSI, social security. It would be even fairer if we had either socialized medicine or national health insurance.



The solution is given in the Book of Acts 2:40-47 - spiritual socialism. Not all religions are oppressive or the opiate of the people.



Marx and Engels correctly observed that religion is the opium of the people. It blinds people to their oppression by promising a reward in the afterlife. However, I would argue that religion does not need to be oppressive, as Latin American and Palestinian liberation theologians have pointed out.



With respect to Israel/Palestine I think that the Palestinians have the better case. They have history on their side. Modern-days Ashkenazic Jews (including my own ancesters) are not much more (if at all) related to the ancient Hebrews than are any other Central and Eastern Europeans.



Some liberation theologians have recently been making more conciliatory statements about capitalism. To me, that is unfortunate.

America has a one-party system masquerading as two. Conservatism is the class consciousness of the oppressor. Liberalism is the false consciousness of the oppressed. They are, taken together, the two sides of one oppressive coin - parties to a culture war whose only victor is continued oppression.



Left Radicalism, on the other hand, is the class consciousness of the oppressed. The thesis (conservatism) x the antithesis (liberalism) = the synthesis (radicalism).



Although Islámic and other religious terrorisms cannot be tolerated by the international community, talk of a war on terrorism puts the cart before the horse. Our primary focus should be on the root causes of religious terrorism, not on its violent consequences.



Rather than a war on global terrorism, our first fight must be a war on global poverty through international socialism. Secondly, we must struggle against the forces of nationalism and establish a universal federal, rather than unitary, system of global governance.



Once basic human needs are satisfied and the nation is subordinated to a global state, the blight of terrorism, which thrives under the banes of economic oppression and ethnic inequality, will be mostly eliminated.



A case in point is the contemporary apartheid between Israel and Palestine where, reminiscent of both the ghettoization of the European ancestors of many of the Israelis and of the previous establishment of racial homelands in South Africa, the building of white collar settlements in underclass occupied territories continues largely unabated.



While Islámic terrorism is never excusable, it is, given the cultural imperialism or hegemony of the West, explainable. In the current climate of globalization, which misuses the universalistic spirit of the age to justify the expansion of global markets and to satisfy capitalist greed, terrorism is frequently directed at perceived symbols of the military-industrial complex.



Good and evil are matters of degree, not political typologies. They exist in all of us, and in all countries. However, the contemporary bifurcation of the world into good and evil, recalling references to the former Soviet Union as the evil empire, ignores the extent to which injustice, or domestic terrorism, is tolerated in one of the Western world's most corrupt nations, the United States.



American terrorism takes such forms as opportunistic and ever-shifting foreign policies, the imposition of particularistic U.S. values and cultural constructs of freedom on the global South and other poor nations, and a market-driven medical establishment which leaves many of its own citizens with inadequate, sometimes nonexistent, health care.



If our planet had a just, socialized global economy, religious terrorism would take care of itself. Unfortunately, our present war against, largely Islámic fundamentalist or Wahabbí, terrorist agencies, while of some benefit, is, precisely because of what it fails to address, an insult to the majority of the earth's peoples and to their rights to economic and political equity.



In the specific case of Afghanistan, its liberation from al-Qa'ída and the Taliban was simply a byproduct of the so-called war on terrorism. U.S. Administrative compassion was little more than political expediency. Moreover, al-Qa'ída (neo-Wahabbism) would never have come to dominate the Taliban had it not been for that country's abandonment by the U.S. (and the West in general).



In December 2001, Bill O'Reilly, the ugly American "star" of Fascist Fox (Fox News Channel, in the U.S.), said to an Afghan official, "Americans don't care about who governs Afghanistan. We just want to get Usama bin Lawdin." Passing Larry King Live, on CNN, Fox's The O'Reilly Factor has become the most popular American cable news program.



As long as the world's only superpower, the U.S., is allowed to dictate the shape of world order, its character will likely remain unstable.







We need, it seems to me, a new liberation theology which will transform conventional religion from a tool of the oppressive class consciousness of the capitalist establishment and from the false consciousness of reform, characteristic of the religion of the oppressed, to a revolutionary spiritual class consciousness of the oppressed - a grass-roots liberation theology.



In plain speech, what I am suggesting is the following:



1. The differences between the two major parties are so insignificant that it would not be too far off the mark to say that we have a one-party system.



2. Conservatism allows those in power, the military-industrial complex (capitalism or the free market system), to justify their actions. It is the belief system of oppression.



3. Liberalism gives false hope to the oppressed by promising to reform an oppressive system (capitalism or the free market system). Thus, it discourages the masses from rebelling against capitalism.



4. Left radicalism is a way of thinking which, if adopted by the oppressed, would encourage them to revolt against capitalism.



5. The new liberation theology I am referring to would be the transformation of religion from an instrument of the capitalist oppressors to a tool of spiritual revolution.



The two-party system virtually assures that we will never have anything like what happened in the former Soviet Union. Third parties are prevented from having any meaningful impact on American politics.



Personally, I am a social radical and a moral conservative. However, our two-party system has made it appear that my perspective would be contradictory. As I see it, my collectivistic views and the essentially opposite ones of the libertarians are both more internally consistent than either liberalism or conservatism.



The anarchists (Buchanin et al.) believe that government is, by definition, oppressive. Personally, I would make a distinction between oppression and social control. The main issue in oppression is social stratification, or institutionalized social inequality, not power in itself.



I would not call oppression what is beneficial to the majority. For that reason, I reject the possibility of so-called reverse discrimination.



It seems to me that people should develop through the normal struggles we all experience - not given a special measure of them by an oppressor caste (men, whites, the able-bodied, etc.). Note that, in referring to an "oppressor caste," I have in mind groups and not individuals.



Liberalism is destructive.. However, I think that liberalism feeds on that destruction and also contains the seeds of its own destruction. Liberalism is reactionary.



I do not agree that conservatives as necessarily afraid of change. I think it is much more complex than that. Obviously, those who championed the so-called Reagan revolution were not afraid of change. Of course, that didn't make it any less evil.



Not only conservatives, but many liberals also want to return to the past.. For instance, many would like to return the Johnson and Nixon's "Great Society" program.



Many, sadly, are proposing psychological solutions to social (sociological) problems, i.e., laziness, fear, or lack of self-esteem. As I see it, the greatest barriers to change are oppression and injustice.



Capitalism is inherently unfair. Any "fairness" to the system has been a result of an infusion of socialism, i.e., medicare, medicaid, food stamps, SSI, social security. It would be even fairer if we had either socialized medicine or national health insurance.



The solution is given in the Book of Acts 2:40-47 - spiritual socialism. Not all religions are oppressive or the opiate of the people.



Marx and Engels correctly observed that religion is the opium of the people. It blinds people to their oppression by promising a reward in the afterlife. However, I would argue that religion does not need to be oppressive, as Latin American and Palestinian liberation theologians have pointed out.



With respect to Israel/Palestine I think that the Palestinians have the better case. They have history on their side. Modern-days Ashkenazic Jews (including my own ancesters) are not much more (if at all) related to the ancient Hebrews than are any other Central and Eastern Europeans.



Some liberation theologians have recently been making more conciliatory statements about capitalism. To me, that is unfortunate.

America has a one-party system masquerading as two. Conservatism is the class consciousness of the oppressor. Liberalism is the false consciousness of the oppressed. They are, taken together, the two sides of one oppressive coin - parties to a culture war whose only victor is continued oppression.



Left Radicalism, on the other hand, is the class consciousness of the oppressed. The thesis (conservatism) x the antithesis (liberalism) = the synthesis (radicalism).



Although Islámic and other religious terrorisms cannot be tolerated by the international community, talk of a war on terrorism puts the cart before the horse. Our primary focus should be on the root causes of religious terrorism, not on its violent consequences.



Rather than a war on global terrorism, our first fight must be a war on global poverty through international socialism. Secondly, we must struggle against the forces of nationalism and establish a universal federal, rather than unitary, system of global governance.



Once basic human needs are satisfied and the nation is subordinated to a global state, the blight of terrorism, which thrives under the banes of economic oppression and ethnic inequality, will be mostly eliminated.



A case in point is the contemporary apartheid between Israel and Palestine where, reminiscent of both the ghettoization of the European ancestors of many of the Israelis and of the previous establishment of racial homelands in South Africa, the building of white collar settlements in underclass occupied territories continues largely unabated.



While Islámic terrorism is never excusable, it is, given the cultural imperialism or hegemony of the West, explainable. In the current climate of globalization, which misuses the universalistic spirit of the age to justify the expansion of global markets and to satisfy capitalist greed, terrorism is frequently directed at perceived symbols of the military-industrial complex.



Good and evil are matters of degree, not political typologies. They exist in all of us, and in all countries. However, the contemporary bifurcation of the world into good and evil, recalling references to the former Soviet Union as the evil empire, ignores the extent to which injustice, or domestic terrorism, is tolerated in one of the Western world's most corrupt nations, the United States.



American terrorism takes such forms as opportunistic and ever-shifting foreign policies, the imposition of particularistic U.S. values and cultural constructs of freedom on the global South and other poor nations, and a market-driven medical establishment which leaves many of its own citizens with inadequate, sometimes nonexistent, health care.



If our planet had a just, socialized global economy, religious terrorism would take care of itself. Unfortunately, our present war against, largely Islámic fundamentalist or Wahabbí, terrorist agencies, while of some benefit, is, precisely because of what it fails to address, an insult to the majority of the earth's peoples and to their rights to economic and political equity.



In the specific case of Afghanistan, its liberation from al-Qa'ída and the Taliban was simply a byproduct of the so-called war on terrorism. U.S. Administrative compassion was little more than political expediency. Moreover, al-Qa'ída (neo-Wahabbism) would never have come to dominate the Taliban had it not been for that country's abandonment by the U.S. (and the West in general).



In December 2001, Bill O'Reilly, the ugly American "star" of Fascist Fox (Fox News Channel, in the U.S.), said to an Afghan official, "Americans don't care about who governs Afghanistan. We just want to get Usama bin Lawdin." Passing Larry King Live, on CNN, Fox's The O'Reilly Factor has become the most popular American cable news program.



As long as the world's only superpower, the U.S., is allowed to dictate the shape of world order, its character will likely remain unstable.







We need, it seems to me, a new liberation theology which will transform conventional religion from a tool of the oppressive class consciousness of the capitalist establishment and from the false consciousness of reform, characteristic of the religion of the oppressed, to a revolutionary spiritual class consciousness of the oppressed - a grass-roots liberation theology.



In plain speech, what I am suggesting is the following:



1. The differences between the two major parties are so insignificant that it would not be too far off the mark to say that we have a one-party system.



2. Conservatism allows those in power, the military-industrial complex (capitalism or the free market system), to justify their actions. It is the belief system of oppression.



3. Liberalism gives false hope to the oppressed by promising to reform an oppressive system (capitalism or the free market system). Thus, it discourages the masses from rebelling against capitalism.



4. Left radicalism is a way of thinking which, if adopted by the oppressed, would encourage them to revolt against capitalism.



5. The new liberation theology I am referring to would be the transformation of religion from an instrument of the capitalist oppressors to a tool of spiritual revolution.



The two-party system virtually assures that we will never have anything like what happened in the former Soviet Union. Third parties are prevented from having any meaningful impact on American politics.



Personally, I am a social radical and a moral conservative. However, our two-party system has made it appear that my perspective would be contradictory. As I see it, my collectivistic views and the essentially opposite ones of the libertarians are both more internally consistent than either liberalism or conservatism.



The anarchists (Buchanin et al.) believe that government is, by definition, oppressive. Personally, I would make a distinction between oppression and social control. The main issue in oppression is social stratification, or institutionalized social inequality, not power in itself.



I would not call oppression what is beneficial to the majority. For that reason, I reject the possibility of so-called reverse discrimination.



It seems to me that people should develop through the normal struggles we all experience - not given a special measure of them by an oppressor caste (men, whites, the able-bodied, etc.). Note that, in referring to an "oppressor caste," I have in mind groups and not individuals.



Liberalism is destructive.. However, I think that liberalism feeds on that destruction and also contains the seeds of its own destruction. Liberalism is reactionary.



I do not agree that conservatives as necessarily afraid of change. I think it is much more complex than that. Obviously, those who championed the so-called Reagan revolution were not afraid of change. Of course, that didn't make it any less evil.



Not only conservatives, but many liberals also want to return to the past.. For instance, many would like to return the Johnson and Nixon's "Great Society" program.



Many, sadly, are proposing psychological solutions to social (sociological) problems, i.e., laziness, fear, or lack of self-esteem. As I see it, the greatest barriers to change are oppression and injustice.



Capitalism is inherently unfair. Any "fairness" to the system has been a result of an infusion of socialism, i.e., medicare, medicaid, food stamps, SSI, social security. It would be even fairer if we had either socialized medicine or national health insurance.



The solution is given in the Book of Acts 2:40-47 - spiritual socialism. Not all religions are oppressive or the opiate of the people.



Marx and Engels correctly observed that religion is the opium of the people. It blinds people to their oppression by promising a reward in the afterlife. However, I would argue that religion does not need to be oppressive, as Latin American and Palestinian liberation theologians have pointed out.



With respect to Israel/Palestine I think that the Palestinians have the better case. They have history on their side. Modern-days Ashkenazic Jews (including my own ancesters) are not much more (if at all) related to the ancient Hebrews than are any other Central and Eastern Europeans.



Some liberation theologians have recently been making more conciliatory statements about capitalism. To me, that is unfortunate.

America has a one-party system masquerading as two. Conservatism is the class consciousness of the oppressor. Liberalism is the false consciousness of the oppressed. They are, taken together, the two sides of one oppressive coin - parties to a culture war whose only victor is continued oppression.



Left Radicalism, on the other hand, is the class consciousness of the oppressed. The thesis (conservatism) x the antithesis (liberalism) = the synthesis (radicalism).



Although Islámic and other religious terrorisms cannot be tolerated by the international community, talk of a war on terrorism puts the cart before the horse. Our primary focus should be on the root causes of religious terrorism, not on its violent consequences.



Rather than a war on global terrorism, our first fight must be a war on global poverty through international socialism. Secondly, we must struggle against the forces of nationalism and establish a universal federal, rather than unitary, system of global governance.



Once basic human needs are satisfied and the nation is subordinated to a global state, the blight of terrorism, which thrives under the banes of economic oppression and ethnic inequality, will be mostly eliminated.



A case in point is the contemporary apartheid between Israel and Palestine where, reminiscent of both the ghettoization of the European ancestors of many of the Israelis and of the previous establishment of racial homelands in South Africa, the building of white collar settlements in underclass occupied territories continues largely unabated.



While Islámic terrorism is never excusable, it is, given the cultural imperialism or hegemony of the West, explainable. In the current climate of globalization, which misuses the universalistic spirit of the age to justify the expansion of global markets and to satisfy capitalist greed, terrorism is frequently directed at perceived symbols of the military-industrial complex.



Good and evil are matters of degree, not political typologies. They exist in all of us, and in all countries. However, the contemporary bifurcation of the world into good and evil, recalling references to the former Soviet Union as the evil empire, ignores the extent to which injustice, or domestic terrorism, is tolerated in one of the Western world's most corrupt nations, the United States.



American terrorism takes such forms as opportunistic and ever-shifting foreign policies, the imposition of particularistic U.S. values and cultural constructs of freedom on the global South and other poor nations, and a market-driven medical establishment which leaves many of its own citizens with inadequate, sometimes nonexistent, health care.



If our planet had a just, socialized global economy, religious terrorism would take care of itself. Unfortunately, our present war against, largely Islámic fundamentalist or Wahabbí, terrorist agencies, while of some benefit, is, precisely because of what it fails to address, an insult to the majority of the earth's peoples and to their rights to economic and political equity.



In the specific case of Afghanistan, its liberation from al-Qa'ída and the Taliban was simply a byproduct of the so-called war on terrorism. U.S. Administrative compassion was little more than political expediency. Moreover, al-Qa'ída (neo-Wahabbism) would never have come to dominate the Taliban had it not been for that country's abandonment by the U.S. (and the West in general).



In December 2001, Bill O'Reilly, the ugly American "star" of Fascist Fox (Fox News Channel, in the U.S.), said to an Afghan official, "Americans don't care about who governs Afghanistan. We just want to get Usama bin Lawdin." Passing Larry King Live, on CNN, Fox's The O'Reilly Factor has become the most popular American cable news program.



As long as the world's only superpower, the U.S., is allowed to dictate the shape of world order, its character will likely remain unstable.







We need, it seems to me, a new liberation theology which will transform conventional religion from a tool of the oppressive class consciousness of the capitalist establishment and from the false consciousness of reform, characteristic of the religion of the oppressed, to a revolutionary spiritual class consciousness of the oppressed - a grass-roots liberation theology.



In plain speech, what I am suggesting is the following:



1. The differences between the two major parties are so insignificant that it would not be too far off the mark to say that we have a one-party system.



2. Conservatism allows those in power, the military-industrial complex (capitalism or the free market system), to justify their actions. It is the belief system of oppression.



3. Liberalism gives false hope to the oppressed by promising to reform an oppressive system (capitalism or the free market system). Thus, it discourages the masses from rebelling against capitalism.



4. Left radicalism is a way of thinking which, if adopted by the oppressed, would encourage them to revolt against capitalism.



5. The new liberation theology I am referring to would be the transformation of religion from an instrument of the capitalist oppressors to a tool of spiritual revolution.



The two-party system virtually assures that we will never have anything like what happened in the former Soviet Union. Third parties are prevented from having any meaningful impact on American politics.



Personally, I am a social radical and a moral conservative. However, our two-party system has made it appear that my perspective would be contradictory. As I see it, my collectivistic views and the essentially opposite ones of the libertarians are both more internally consistent than either liberalism or conservatism.



The anarchists (Buchanin et al.) believe that government is, by definition, oppressive. Personally, I would make a distinction between oppression and social control. The main issue in oppression is social stratification, or institutionalized social inequality, not power in itself.



I would not call oppression what is beneficial to the majority. For that reason, I reject the possibility of so-called reverse discrimination.



It seems to me that people should develop through the normal struggles we all experience - not given a special measure of them by an oppressor caste (men, whites, the able-bodied, etc.). Note that, in referring to an "oppressor caste," I have in mind groups and not individuals.



Liberalism is destructive.. However, I think that liberalism feeds on that destruction and also contains the seeds of its own destruction. Liberalism is reactionary.



I do not agree that conservatives as necessarily afraid of change. I think it is much more complex than that. Obviously, those who championed the so-called Reagan revolution were not afraid of change. Of course, that didn't make it any less evil.



Not only conservatives, but many liberals also want to return to the past.. For instance, many would like to return the Johnson and Nixon's "Great Society" program.



Many, sadly, are proposing psychological solutions to social (sociological) problems, i.e., laziness, fear, or lack of self-esteem. As I see it, the greatest barriers to change are oppression and injustice.



Capitalism is inherently unfair. Any "fairness" to the system has been a result of an infusion of socialism, i.e., medicare, medicaid, food stamps, SSI, social security. It would be even fairer if we had either socialized medicine or national health insurance.



The solution is given in the Book of Acts 2:40-47 - spiritual socialism. Not all religions are oppressive or the opiate of the people.



Marx and Engels correctly observed that religion is the opium of the people. It blinds people to their oppression by promising a reward in the afterlife. However, I would argue that religion does not need to be oppressive, as Latin American and Palestinian liberation theologians have pointed out.



With respect to Israel/Palestine I think that the Palestinians have the better case. They have history on their side. Modern-days Ashkenazic Jews (including my own ancesters) are not much more (if at all) related to the ancient Hebrews than are any other Central and Eastern Europeans.



Some liberation theologians have recently been making more conciliatory statements about capitalism. To me, that is unfortunate.

America has a one-party system masquerading as two. Conservatism is the class consciousness of the oppressor. Liberalism is the false consciousness of the oppressed. They are, taken together, the two sides of one oppressive coin - parties to a culture war whose only victor is continued oppression.



Left Radicalism, on the other hand, is the class consciousness of the oppressed. The thesis (conservatism) x the antithesis (liberalism) = the synthesis (radicalism).



Although Islámic and other religious terrorisms cannot be tolerated by the international community, talk of a war on terrorism puts the cart before the horse. Our primary focus should be on the root causes of religious terrorism, not on its violent consequences.



Rather than a war on global terrorism, our first fight must be a war on global poverty through international socialism. Secondly, we must struggle against the forces of nationalism and establish a universal federal, rather than unitary, system of global governance.



Once basic human needs are satisfied and the nation is subordinated to a global state, the blight of terrorism, which thrives under the banes of economic oppression and ethnic inequality, will be mostly eliminated.



A case in point is the contemporary apartheid between Israel and Palestine where, reminiscent of both the ghettoization of the European ancestors of many of the Israelis and of the previous establishment of racial homelands in South Africa, the building of white collar settlements in underclass occupied territories continues largely unabated.



While Islámic terrorism is never excusable, it is, given the cultural imperialism or hegemony of the West, explainable. In the current climate of globalization, which misuses the universalistic spirit of the age to justify the expansion of global markets and to satisfy capitalist greed, terrorism is frequently directed at perceived symbols of the military-industrial complex.



Good and evil are matters of degree, not political typologies. They exist in all of us, and in all countries. However, the contemporary bifurcation of the world into good and evil, recalling references to the former Soviet Union as the evil empire, ignores the extent to which injustice, or domestic terrorism, is tolerated in one of the Western world's most corrupt nations, the United States.



American terrorism takes such forms as opportunistic and ever-shifting foreign policies, the imposition of particularistic U.S. values and cultural constructs of freedom on the global South and other poor nations, and a market-driven medical establishment which leaves many of its own citizens with inadequate, sometimes nonexistent, health care.



If our planet had a just, socialized global economy, religious terrorism would take care of itself. Unfortunately, our present war against, largely Islámic fundamentalist or Wahabbí, terrorist agencies, while of some benefit, is, precisely because of what it fails to address, an insult to the majority of the earth's peoples and to their rights to economic and political equity.



In the specific case of Afghanistan, its liberation from al-Qa'ída and the Taliban was simply a byproduct of the so-called war on terrorism. U.S. Administrative compassion was little more than political expediency. Moreover, al-Qa'ída (neo-Wahabbism) would never have come to dominate the Taliban had it not been for that country's abandonment by the U.S. (and the West in general).



In December 2001, Bill O'Reilly, the ugly American "star" of Fascist Fox (Fox News Channel, in the U.S.), said to an Afghan official, "Americans don't care about who governs Afghanistan. We just want to get Usama bin Lawdin." Passing Larry King Live, on CNN, Fox's The O'Reilly Factor has become the most popular American cable news program.



As long as the world's only superpower, the U.S., is allowed to dictate the shape of world order, its character will likely remain unstable.







We need, it seems to me, a new liberation theology which will transform conventional religion from a tool of the oppressive class consciousness of the capitalist establishment and from the false consciousness of reform, characteristic of the religion of the oppressed, to a revolutionary spiritual class consciousness of the oppressed - a grass-roots liberation theology.



In plain speech, what I am suggesting is the following:



1. The differences between the two major parties are so insignificant that it would not be too far off the mark to say that we have a one-party system.



2. Conservatism allows those in power, the military-industrial complex (capitalism or the free market system), to justify their actions. It is the belief system of oppression.



3. Liberalism gives false hope to the oppressed by promising to reform an oppressive system (capitalism or the free market system). Thus, it discourages the masses from rebelling against capitalism.



4. Left radicalism is a way of thinking which, if adopted by the oppressed, would encourage them to revolt against capitalism.



5. The new liberation theology I am referring to would be the transformation of religion from an instrument of the capitalist oppressors to a tool of spiritual revolution.



The two-party system virtually assures that we will never have anything like what happened in the former Soviet Union. Third parties are prevented from having any meaningful impact on American politics.



Personally, I am a social radical and a moral conservative. However, our two-party system has made it appear that my perspective would be contradictory. As I see it, my collectivistic views and the essentially opposite ones of the libertarians are both more internally consistent than either liberalism or conservatism.



The anarchists (Buchanin et al.) believe that government is, by definition, oppressive. Personally, I would make a distinction between oppression and social control. The main issue in oppression is social stratification, or institutionalized social inequality, not power in itself.



I would not call oppression what is beneficial to the majority. For that reason, I reject the possibility of so-called reverse discrimination.



It seems to me that people should develop through the normal struggles we all experience - not given a special measure of them by an oppressor caste (men, whites, the able-bodied, etc.). Note that, in referring to an "oppressor caste," I have in mind groups and not individuals.



Liberalism is destructive.. However, I think that liberalism feeds on that destruction and also contains the seeds of its own destruction. Liberalism is reactionary.



I do not agree that conservatives as necessarily afraid of change. I think it is much more complex than that. Obviously, those who championed the so-called Reagan revolution were not afraid of change. Of course, that didn't make it any less evil.



Not only conservatives, but many liberals also want to return to the past.. For instance, many would like to return the Johnson and Nixon's "Great Society" program.



Many, sadly, are proposing psychological solutions to social (sociological) problems, i.e., laziness, fear, or lack of self-esteem. As I see it, the greatest barriers to change are oppression and injustice.



Capitalism is inherently unfair. Any "fairness" to the system has been a result of an infusion of socialism, i.e., medicare, medicaid, food stamps, SSI, social security. It would be even fairer if we had either socialized medicine or national health insurance.



The solution is given in the Book of Acts 2:40-47 - spiritual socialism. Not all religions are oppressive or the opiate of the people.



Marx and Engels correctly observed that religion is the opium of the people. It blinds people to their oppression by promising a reward in the afterlife. However, I would argue that religion does not need to be oppressive, as Latin American and Palestinian liberation theologians have pointed out.



With respect to Israel/Palestine I think that the Palestinians have the better case. They have history on their side. Modern-days Ashkenazic Jews (including my own ancesters) are not much more (if at all) related to the ancient Hebrews than are any other Central and Eastern Europeans.



Some liberation theologians have recently been making more conciliatory statements about capitalism. To me, that is unfortunate.

America has a one-party system masquerading as two. Conservatism is the class consciousness of the oppressor. Liberalism is the false consciousness of the oppressed. They are, taken together, the two sides of one oppressive coin - parties to a culture war whose only victor is continued oppression.



Left Radicalism, on the other hand, is the class consciousness of the oppressed. The thesis (conservatism) x the antithesis (liberalism) = the synthesis (radicalism).



Although Islámic and other religious terrorisms cannot be tolerated by the international community, talk of a war on terrorism puts the cart before the horse. Our primary focus should be on the root causes of religious terrorism, not on its violent consequences.



Rather than a war on global terrorism, our first fight must be a war on global poverty through international socialism. Secondly, we must struggle against the forces of nationalism and establish a universal federal, rather than unitary, system of global governance.



Once basic human needs are satisfied and the nation is subordinated to a global state, the blight of terrorism, which thrives under the banes of economic oppression and ethnic inequality, will be mostly eliminated.



A case in point is the contemporary apartheid between Israel and Palestine where, reminiscent of both the ghettoization of the European ancestors of many of the Israelis and of the previous establishment of racial homelands in South Africa, the building of white collar settlements in underclass occupied territories continues largely unabated.



While Islámic terrorism is never excusable, it is, given the cultural imperialism or hegemony of the West, explainable. In the current climate of globalization, which misuses the universalistic spirit of the age to justify the expansion of global markets and to satisfy capitalist greed, terrorism is frequently directed at perceived symbols of the military-industrial complex.



Good and evil are matters of degree, not political typologies. They exist in all of us, and in all countries. However, the contemporary bifurcation of the world into good and evil, recalling references to the former Soviet Union as the evil empire, ignores the extent to which injustice, or domestic terrorism, is tolerated in one of the Western world's most corrupt nations, the United States.



American terrorism takes such forms as opportunistic and ever-shifting foreign policies, the imposition of particularistic U.S. values and cultural constructs of freedom on the global South and other poor nations, and a market-driven medical establishment which leaves many of its own citizens with inadequate, sometimes nonexistent, health care.



If our planet had a just, socialized global economy, religious terrorism would take care of itself. Unfortunately, our present war against, largely Islámic fundamentalist or Wahabbí, terrorist agencies, while of some benefit, is, precisely because of what it fails to address, an insult to the majority of the earth's peoples and to their rights to economic and political equity.



In the specific case of Afghanistan, its liberation from al-Qa'ída and the Taliban was simply a byproduct of the so-called war on terrorism. U.S. Administrative compassion was little more than political expediency. Moreover, al-Qa'ída (neo-Wahabbism) would never have come to dominate the Taliban had it not been for that country's abandonment by the U.S. (and the West in general).



In December 2001, Bill O'Reilly, the ugly American "star" of Fascist Fox (Fox News Channel, in the U.S.), said to an Afghan official, "Americans don't care about who governs Afghanistan. We just want to get Usama bin Lawdin." Passing Larry King Live, on CNN, Fox's The O'Reilly Factor has become the most popular American cable news program.



As long as the world's only superpower, the U.S., is allowed to dictate the shape of world order, its character will likely remain unstable.







We need, it seems to me, a new liberation theology which will transform conventional religion from a tool of the oppressive class consciousness of the capitalist establishment and from the false consciousness of reform, characteristic of the religion of the oppressed, to a revolutionary spiritual class consciousness of the oppressed - a grass-roots liberation theology.



In plain speech, what I am suggesting is the following:



1. The differences between the two major parties are so insignificant that it would not be too far off the mark to say that we have a one-party system.



2. Conservatism allows those in power, the military-industrial complex (capitalism or the free market system), to justify their actions. It is the belief system of oppression.



3. Liberalism gives false hope to the oppressed by promising to reform an oppressive system (capitalism or the free market system). Thus, it discourages the masses from rebelling against capitalism.



4. Left radicalism is a way of thinking which, if adopted by the oppressed, would encourage them to revolt against capitalism.



5. The new liberation theology I am referring to would be the transformation of religion from an instrument of the capitalist oppressors to a tool of spiritual revolution.



The two-party system virtually assures that we will never have anything like what happened in the former Soviet Union. Third parties are prevented from having any meaningful impact on American politics.



Personally, I am a social radical and a moral conservative. However, our two-party system has made it appear that my perspective would be contradictory. As I see it, my collectivistic views and the essentially opposite ones of the libertarians are both more internally consistent than either liberalism or conservatism.



The anarchists (Buchanin et al.) believe that government is, by definition, oppressive. Personally, I would make a distinction between oppression and social control. The main issue in oppression is social stratification, or institutionalized social inequality, not power in itself.



I would not call oppression what is beneficial to the majority. For that reason, I reject the possibility of so-called reverse discrimination.



It seems to me that people should develop through the normal struggles we all experience - not given a special measure of them by an oppressor caste (men, whites, the able-bodied, etc.). Note that, in referring to an "oppressor caste," I have in mind groups and not individuals.



Liberalism is destructive.. However, I think that liberalism feeds on that destruction and also contains the seeds of its own destruction. Liberalism is reactionary.



I do not agree that conservatives as necessarily afraid of change. I think it is much more complex than that. Obviously, those who championed the so-called Reagan revolution were not afraid of change. Of course, that didn't make it any less evil.



Not only conservatives, but many liberals also want to return to the past.. For instance, many would like to return the Johnson and Nixon's "Great Society" program.



Many, sadly, are proposing psychological solutions to social (sociological) problems, i.e., laziness, fear, or lack of self-esteem. As I see it, the greatest barriers to change are oppression and injustice.



Capitalism is inherently unfair. Any "fairness" to the system has been a result of an infusion of socialism, i.e., medicare, medicaid, food stamps, SSI, social security. It would be even fairer if we had either socialized medicine or national health insurance.



The solution is given in the Book of Acts 2:40-47 - spiritual socialism. Not all religions are oppressive or the opiate of the people.



Marx and Engels correctly observed that religion is the opium of the people. It blinds people to their oppression by promising a reward in the afterlife. However, I would argue that religion does not need to be oppressive, as Latin American and Palestinian liberation theologians have pointed out.



With respect to Israel/Palestine I think that the Palestinians have the better case. They have history on their side. Modern-days Ashkenazic Jews (including my own ancesters) are not much more (if at all) related to the ancient Hebrews than are any other Central and Eastern Europeans.



Some liberation theologians have recently been making more conciliatory statements about capitalism. To me, that is unfortunate.

America has a one-party system masquerading as two. Conservatism is the class consciousness of the oppressor. Liberalism is the false consciousness of the oppressed. They are, taken together, the two sides of one oppressive coin - parties to a culture war whose only victor is continued oppression.



Left Radicalism, on the other hand, is the class consciousness of the oppressed. The thesis (conservatism) x the antithesis (liberalism) = the synthesis (radicalism).



Although Islámic and other religious terrorisms cannot be tolerated by the international community, talk of a war on terrorism puts the cart before the horse. Our primary focus should be on the root causes of religious terrorism, not on its violent consequences.



Rather than a war on global terrorism, our first fight must be a war on global poverty through international socialism. Secondly, we must struggle against the forces of nationalism and establish a universal federal, rather than unitary, system of global governance.



Once basic human needs are satisfied and the nation is subordinated to a global state, the blight of terrorism, which thrives under the banes of economic oppression and ethnic inequality, will be mostly eliminated.



A case in point is the contemporary apartheid between Israel and Palestine where, reminiscent of both the ghettoization of the European ancestors of many of the Israelis and of the previous establishment of racial homelands in South Africa, the building of white collar settlements in underclass occupied territories continues largely unabated.



While Islámic terrorism is never excusable, it is, given the cultural imperialism or hegemony of the West, explainable. In the current climate of globalization, which misuses the universalistic spirit of the age to justify the expansion of global markets and to satisfy capitalist greed, terrorism is frequently directed at perceived symbols of the military-industrial complex.



Good and evil are matters of degree, not political typologies. They exist in all of us, and in all countries. However, the contemporary bifurcation of the world into good and evil, recalling references to the former Soviet Union as the evil empire, ignores the extent to which injustice, or domestic terrorism, is tolerated in one of the Western world's most corrupt nations, the United States.



American terrorism takes such forms as opportunistic and ever-shifting foreign policies, the imposition of particularistic U.S. values and cultural constructs of freedom on the global South and other poor nations, and a market-driven medical establishment which leaves many of its own citizens with inadequate, sometimes nonexistent, health care.



If our planet had a just, socialized global economy, religious terrorism would take care of itself. Unfortunately, our present war against, largely Islámic fundamentalist or Wahabbí, terrorist agencies, while of some benefit, is, precisely because of what it fails to address, an insult to the majority of the earth's peoples and to their rights to economic and political equity.



In the specific case of Afghanistan, its liberation from al-Qa'ída and the Taliban was simply a byproduct of the so-called war on terrorism. U.S. Administrative compassion was little more than political expediency. Moreover, al-Qa'ída (neo-Wahabbism) would never have come to dominate the Taliban had it not been for that country's abandonment by the U.S. (and the West in general).



In December 2001, Bill O'Reilly, the ugly American "star" of Fascist Fox (Fox News Channel, in the U.S.), said to an Afghan official, "Americans don't care about who governs Afghanistan. We just want to get Usama bin Lawdin." Passing Larry King Live, on CNN, Fox's The O'Reilly Factor has become the most popular American cable news program.



As long as the world's only superpower, the U.S., is allowed to dictate the shape of world order, its character will likely remain unstable.







We need, it seems to me, a new liberation theology which will transform conventional religion from a tool of the oppressive class consciousness of the capitalist establishment and from the false consciousness of reform, characteristic of the religion of the oppressed, to a revolutionary spiritual class consciousness of the oppressed - a grass-roots liberation theology.



In plain speech, what I am suggesting is the following:



1. The differences between the two major parties are so insignificant that it would not be too far off the mark to say that we have a one-party system.



2. Conservatism allows those in power, the military-industrial complex (capitalism or the free market system), to justify their actions. It is the belief system of oppression.



3. Liberalism gives false hope to the oppressed by promising to reform an oppressive system (capitalism or the free market system). Thus, it discourages the masses from rebelling against capitalism.



4. Left radicalism is a way of thinking which, if adopted by the oppressed, would encourage them to revolt against capitalism.



5. The new liberation theology I am referring to would be the transformation of religion from an instrument of the capitalist oppressors to a tool of spiritual revolution.



The two-party system virtually assures that we will never have anything like what happened in the former Soviet Union. Third parties are prevented from having any meaningful impact on American politics.



Personally, I am a social radical and a moral conservative. However, our two-party system has made it appear that my perspective would be contradictory. As I see it, my collectivistic views and the essentially opposite ones of the libertarians are both more internally consistent than either liberalism or conservatism.



The anarchists (Buchanin et al.) believe that government is, by definition, oppressive. Personally, I would make a distinction between oppression and social control. The main issue in oppression is social stratification, or institutionalized social inequality, not power in itself.



I would not call oppression what is beneficial to the majority. For that reason, I reject the possibility of so-called reverse discrimination.



It seems to me that people should develop through the normal struggles we all experience - not given a special measure of them by an oppressor caste (men, whites, the able-bodied, etc.). Note that, in referring to an "oppressor caste," I have in mind groups and not individuals.



Liberalism is destructive.. However, I think that liberalism feeds on that destruction and also contains the seeds of its own destruction. Liberalism is reactionary.



I do not agree that conservatives as necessarily afraid of change. I think it is much more complex than that. Obviously, those who championed the so-called Reagan revolution were not afraid of change. Of course, that didn't make it any less evil.



Not only conservatives, but many liberals also want to return to the past.. For instance, many would like to return the Johnson and Nixon's "Great Society" program.



Many, sadly, are proposing psychological solutions to social (sociological) problems, i.e., laziness, fear, or lack of self-esteem. As I see it, the greatest barriers to change are oppression and injustice.



Capitalism is inherently unfair. Any "fairness" to the system has been a result of an infusion of socialism, i.e., medicare, medicaid, food stamps, SSI, social security. It would be even fairer if we had either socialized medicine or national health insurance.



The solution is given in the Book of Acts 2:40-47 - spiritual socialism. Not all religions are oppressive or the opiate of the people.



Marx and Engels correctly observed that religion is the opium of the people. It blinds people to their oppression by promising a reward in the afterlife. However, I would argue that religion does not need to be oppressive, as Latin American and Palestinian liberation theologians have pointed out.



With respect to Israel/Palestine I think that the Palestinians have the better case. They have history on their side. Modern-days Ashkenazic Jews (including my own ancesters) are not much more (if at all) related to the ancient Hebrews than are any other Central and Eastern Europeans.



Some liberation theologians have recently been making more conciliatory statements about capitalism. To me, that is unfortunate.