Trying to understand things…

Possible global maoist support:-

It basically looks back to what might have helped Obama in his meteoric rise…The connections.
One of the his masters could be one Bill Ayers…And I think these people are important in American politics ( pro Hugo Chavez in targeting the Columbian deal). And these people are closer to maoist warfare too…They would mount small small attacks like the way Mao did.
Ayers, of course, had long held what the left once knew as “maoist” politics – a view of the world that was opposed to Russian style bureaucratic communism from above, instead supporting sending revolutionary cadre to “swim among the masses like fish in the sea” or attempting to establish guerilla foco as romantically theorized by Regis Debray and carried out with disastrous results by Che Guevara.
Here is ideas on teaching…”Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!” . . . .”. Palestinians are better in this scheme because the spoiled kids of rich man can readily use them as violent thugs. The other thing is councils…I know those type of local councils at another place…they choose ridiculous local councils…an MD, an illiterate were made part of the council. They don’t do any meaningful job.

The other notable thing from that blog is what is popular in the left as bottom-up approach – that is to attack the middle class from bottom when they have power in the top.
I would be inclined to predict quota action in US universities if Obama gets elected .

Updt: There is another blog news that says Bill Richardson ( Who has endorsed Obama) has met Chavez for some hostage negotiation.
Updt: A senior editor of the the saloon thinks Obama is influenced by Bill Ayers .[ The fine column is discussed and linked somewhere below]

This article is interesting: http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-sent-obama.html

Here is a WSJ article on Obama- connections.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120873956522230099.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

-0-

On the tape….Wright had a pretty good interview in CBS….

I have to re-read it , put it in context…then question why I am putting it context and reading it…Part of Yesterday was lost with these questions…The confusion was:

1-Wright uses strong logic in Christian theology context to say his black theology is not racist, when clearly it is.
2-He says it is valid to have his cultural aspects in going to god.[Okay]
3-He says Christians had created problems for blacks in matters of worship and it was not egalitarian.[Okay]

Issue-3 is correct …These slaves were there because of the racial interpretation of European intellectuals…Christians included…some of them leftists too [It is a different issue if they were good at heart] !! The missionaries were double faced…Generally they worked with empire and race to destroy other civilizations, and controlling new politics through church .

Issue-2 : Therefore from a historical perspective Write has a strong case for all the stuff he is doing. [This is countered differently].

issue-1 : I need to comeback to this subject and understand it. Some tentative stuff…
Write is not a mad man… and he indeed talking about god…what ever he was talking…so he is not a criminal racist. But he has this very historical interpretation and this is is racist – even though he has a nice justification for it, and even when this gives me a more sympathetic view of our Indian sickular interpretation…I understand where they get this stuff.
Race was biblical stuff ( as I understand from their analysis of India) and christians just hide this for conversion purposes…It is not that ‘god loves you’ …Some times ‘chickens come home to roost’…A whole lot of justification is on people whom christians destroyed…the Romans, the greeks….Writes even mentions these. So a historical justification is understandable…probably acceptable in christian liberation theology – political interference….but this is clearly political act – it doesn’t matter if justified as good and desirable

Mainstream opposition:-1
——————————
From a popular conservative blog…written by an American Lady:
but Wright is blessing America’s sins with his liberal theology and social ideology” – Contemporary …yes…but this doesn’t refute #1, #2 .
He does not have the moral authority to suggest God damn America democratically true…but logically write is not refuted.

nor is he apparently aware of the historical contexts in which God desired to redeem civilizations because of their righteous citizens despite the sinful ones. History is endorsed…Write gets points here. Question would be why did the church colluded to grant salvation to the slave owners or traders ? Why didn’t it discriminate the people ? or stop the trade ? The issue here is – did the god cursed a particular race ? If not, the what is big issue with afrocentric church , considering all that happened?

Why the christian missionaries make it their right and pretend it as logic and sensible to slander the early Romans, Greeks and everything before the 700CE in Afganisthan…including smashing Budhas that does no harm…?Oops …I confused with the talibans…that is my mistake, christain missionaries actually are intolerant of civilizations that predates their empires. Is this an way to justify the superiority of a so called message ?

So as much I love the honesty and courage of a gracious lady who wrote refutation to wright, I think she got it wrong on the historical issue.

problem emerges when Wright doesn’t not define “hope” and “meaning in life”. It is in these details that his social gospel strays from Jesus’ gospel. It replaces the exalted Christ with a crucified political community I don’t think write is deviating from mainstream Christianity in the hope issue…

This is interesting…Wright says gad damn America like a true marxists, and he is stronger on logic based from Christianity !

Mainstream opposition:-2
——————————
Interesting refutation from some blog….The liberation theology is Marxist inspired . It depends on migrations. In case of write, the suffering has to end with godly manner than revenge.

This is interesting information…But the liberation theology is actually by the catholic church…not by marxists. The church refuted it, probably when it hurt them. They use this idea to beat up other cultures still. I would be happy if Church gives it a burial …..

Migrations….That deadly word….I think this where the marxists learnt the idea to ethnically cleanse….Middle east seems to be quite an historical place !

Anyway…It acts as a sermon…but doesn’t refute Wright. I am waiting to read an article that would refute Wright.

Mainstream-opposition -3
————————–
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/27/wright_moyers/
This one is a well written article, Wright is opposed on arguments. He has been thrashed convincing in so simple terms – but the arguments are not based on religious sources.

Opposition-4

—————–

This is wall street journal…It refutes Wright by pointing that Wright is not entirely apolitical. That is a superficial refutation to core Wright arguments…This these peripheral refutations have become the chorus.

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

opposition-5

————–
This is interesting because it is from Harvard professor of Advanced studies…He is impressed by Wright’s ideas…just that he want some reconciliation to be advantageous….[These guys will be in favor of Aryan theories when it can be applied elsewhere to destroy others]. As commented in 1 and 2 above, Wright hasn’t been refuted on his core arguments of the blackness and theology from Christian perspective..

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/29/obama_wright/index1.html

Frances Kissling, fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University and the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice

As a Roman Catholic liberation theology supporter, I have, for the most part, been enormously impressed with Jeremiah Wright’s recent appearances, his passion for the gospels and defense of black liberation theology and the black church. He has spoken hard truth to power as well as uttered some nonsense. He would be remiss if he did not use the media opportunity presented to him to push his biblical and political commitments. I think Wright has made clear that he does not speak for Obama and that he does not care if Obama is elected or not. He marches to a different drummer. It would be great if we lived in a country where Obama (and Clinton) could engage in a discourse with the best of Wright’s ideas, while unequivocally rejecting those that are factually incorrect and offensive. Unfortunately we do not live in such a country. Sen. Clinton has totally dismissed Wright; but her vision of a good pastor would exclude even Jesus Christ. Sen. Obama has been more nuanced and appropriately clear that Wright does not represent him. He should move on now, and so should we.

Opposition-6 from Executive VP, Fox news

—————————————-

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352945,00.html

The first serious attempt to answer Mr Wright. He argues, the church and soul don’t have a color.

But :

1-Wright can give so many examples where church had color…so this is not a valid argument.

2-Church saw things in color, when it attacked the Brahmins…which would mean probably it knew no other than race..the race of semites, aryans, hamites….[ Normal Europeans had found a lot of transcendental philosophy from Indians.]. The european linguistic and racial ideas have been disastrous.

3- Church described things in color when it needed to convert. Or found convenient.

4- Church is a social political organization which claims its social role in societies with whom it was never part of…This is imperialistic and destructive…It creates grand plans to convert others, to have control over the poor people from Rome…Sometimes it creates wars between groups where neighbors misunderstand neighbors, some think themselves to be dravidians and attack the aryans, Hutsus to tutsis…..and all that this so that social organization of church gets more space at a place where it doesn’t have any claim to society. This is hardly color blind.

—-

A comment by an Obama supporter – I think I recognize the shrill voice…a potential naxalite murder or national socialist thug:

The fo-> ul, lyi-> ng, delu-> sional She-Weasel is McCains best hope for defeating Obama.” – This is a comment by an Obama supporter towards Ms Clinton. -> are inserted by me.

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. American Women are mostly pretty but they are usually plumper compared to Russian women. *

    <a href="Our online site
    http://www.caramoantravel.com/caramoan-tour-package/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: