Maoism vs. Christian Missionaries

So my last video “Charity as a Means of Inaction” spoke about how charity doesn’t help the problem, only provides a band aid cover. Basically I said charity makes us feel as though we’ve done something even though we’ve done nothing to actually change the way things are. You feel good about donating a dollar a day, but the poverty continues, requiring you to keep donating a dollar a day. Radical action is the only way to change things the way they are. Of course the video went far more into detail, but that’s the jist of it.

Now got one of subscribers who is a Christian fundamentalist really angry at me. He responded to it by saying missionaries feed tens of thousands stomachs while Maoists did absolutely nothing. The statement was nothing short of monstrously ignorant and completely devoid of reality. I replied to him and it turned into one of those worthless YouTube fights that discusses nothing and promotes total faggotry. Eventually the situation required me to block the idiot because he kept saying the same thing over and over again without backing it up and being insulting.

Okay so here goes Maoist Revolution versus Christian Missionaries:

Christan missionaries are great because they put food in people’s bellies right? Well, if you ignore the part where you have to convert to their religion first. Which makes them absolutely pathetic and outright sickening, using the threat of starvation to force people into religious conversion. They don’t care about those people’s hunger, they care about point scoring in “converting” people. Nothing speaks the love of Christ like obedience or death.

Maoist revolution on the other hand is a concentrated effort by the people to actively change the conditions they live in. It is a path of action to end the poverty and starvation. Its a social change to facilitate what people need, as opposed to just promising a “better world” once you die.

Christian missionaries solve nothing, only a radical reorganization of society can tackle the problems face by the people.

2 thoughts on “Maoism vs. Christian Missionaries

  1. You started acting like an ass. You totally defended Christian missionaries without question. You acted exactly like a Christan fundamentalist. Don’t cry when someone calls you on it. I don’t have time for people who do like me, or have something intelligent to contribute. So why would I waste it on some crybaby looking for my attention after I’ve already made it clear I don’t want to talk to him. Remember loser, YOU commented and watched MY videos. Not the other way around.

  2. I quite honestly don’t think attacking individual missionaries is necessary. While a majority of those whom control the missionaries are inherently reactionary and allow for the continual exploitation through attempts at depoliticizing the reasons that poverty and exploitation occurs, combined with being apart of Neo-Colonialisation, the missionaries themselves are simply attempting to answer these problems through what they view as a ‘rightful’ response. Many volunteering and yet again being involved with the above without realizing this.

    What should be noted is that these Volunteers have the potential of being coordinated in a revolutionary motion after Imperialism is resisted and they have the ability to join the struggle hand in hand with others that are solving these issues through revolutionary proletarian means.

    Obviously though attempts at converting should be opposed. But, as Thomas Sankara pointed out and as I previously had said– the Volunteers are inherently not the enemy, they’re simply in many forms misguiding their volunteer work in the countries that they’re in, unlike other forms of Imperialism, they themselves set out with the view that they’re offering something unique and giving back. Which is different that armed imperialism, with correct guiding on a national basis in the countries that they operate in, they can easily be apart of beneficial help towards the people.

    What should be demanded though is this:

    1.) That they no longer act confrontational when converting, IE: No converting methods that are inherently: ‘Convert and accept my religious views and I shall offer you food.’ In fact, what they should simply do is offer them to hear their own religious views, if they are curious about these views, which at its own isn’t necessarily converting its simply allowing the sharing of religious information.
    2.) Seek to build themselves in a multi-religious aspect by allowing members of other religions into their programs to share their own views even if they are no longer religious. (Which would abolish Christian Missionaries completely and simply make them missions that are Multi-Ethnic and Multi-Religious.)

    But, I think this comes to mind as well and what must be focused on, these Missionaries are atleast acting beneficial in the ways that their own religious figure had. (Jesus, which according to their religious Text, The Bible, had acted in the same fashion and had given back) and for that I see them as somewhat more progressive than others.

    Exploitative religion in all forms must be combated, however beneficial positive religion has its purposes and while it shouldn’t be embraced as a state-entity, should in all forms be allowed whether it be Christian, Islamic, Buddhist or any other religion.

Comments are closed.