[CTRL] Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: Masonic Rites, No Less. In Castro's Bailiwick!
-Caveat Lector- > http://www.nytimes.com/ads/Harrisdirect.html > > \--/ > > > Masonic Rites, No Less. In Castro's Bailiwick! > > April 30, 2002 > > By DAVID GONZALEZ > > > > > HAVANA, April 25 - Cuba's capital has a sovereign grand > commander who wears a uniform, is privy to secrets and > partial to symbolism. But he is not Fidel Castro. > > His name is Jesús Armada Pena, and he is a 33rd degree > Mason who presides over Cuba's Supreme Council at an > imposing, if age-worn, Scottish Rite Masonic temple in > central Havana. > > Long discouraged and distrusted by the authorities, Cuba's > Masons have seen their ranks more than double since the > 1980's, to 29,000 members in more than 316 lodges across > the island. Earlier this year, the Cuban government gave > permission for two new lodges, the first since 1967. > > Along with other fraternal or mystical groups, like the > Oddfellows and the Rosicrucians, the Masons have been > attracting men searching for more enduring answers than > those offered by Communism, the only system generations of > Cubans have ever known. > > Once shrouded in secrecy, the fraternal groups - which > exist in many countries and have origins as old as the > Crusades - shun specific religions and ideologies and say > their purpose is to foster brotherhood and search for > truth. > > The Masons, the largest of Cuba's brotherhoods, meet weekly > to celebrate rituals in rooms with flaked murals of the > heavens and tarnished swords on pedestals. They sit, > wearing threadbare ceremonial aprons, in high-backed wooden > chairs. > > Members visit the sick in hospitals and help out their > families. Mr. Armada's Masonic temple distributes medicine > and vitamins donated by lodges in the United States and > Europe. The brotherhoods are creating a mutual aid network > that seeks - very cautiously - to provide what Mr. Castro's > government does not or will not. > > "We have always existed in Cuba," Mr. Armada said. "But > after the revolution there was a decrease in membership. So > many left the country, while others thought the Masons no > longer had a reason for being because our principles and > foundation as an institution were overtaken by the > political process." > > He added: "Now we have found an echo among the young. They > are looking for answers to their worries, which the state > could not give them." > > What the state has long given the Masons is trouble, going > back to the rule of Spain in the 1800's. The first lodges > were founded by French settlers who fled the slave revolt > in Haiti. Cuba's Grand Lodge and the Supreme Council were > created in 1859, and attracted many men who would go on to > fight Spanish colonial rule. > > Pointing to a portrait on his office wall of Benito Juárez, > the Mason and Mexican hero, he said the fellowship has had > a strong appeal to nationalists. Even José Martí, the > fabled apostle of Cuba's fight against Spain, was said to > have been a Mason. > > "The Mason is imbued with the ideals of the French > Revolution, the American Revolution and the philosophical > currents of the time, like Rousseau," Mr. Armada said. > > But when the Communist revolution came to power in 1959, > the Masons' ideas were seen as a threat. Membership > plummeted from 39,000 in 1959 to 14,000 by 1980, as the > group was treated as a clandestine counterrevolutionary > sect. > > Recently the government has given a little more leeway, > even allowing some Masons to travel to conventions > overseas. Members are careful not to overstep their bounds, > and they give the government reports on their meetings. > > Lately they have been allowed to conduct wreath-laying > ceremonies in public parks. But they cannot hold street > processions with unfurled banners. > > "There is a great vacuum after the fall of the socialist > bloc did away with any hope for people to develop > themselves," said Raúl Rivero, an independent Cuban > journalist. "So people sought refuge in those groups > looking for solidarity. For these fraternal groups the > loyalty is to the human being. For the government, > solidarity is conditioned on political principle." > > Officially, the government now says the Masons are linked > to some of the nobler moments of Cuba's past. Privately, > Masons complain that they are infiltrated with government > agents and sometimes receive veiled warnings about their > meetings with foreigners, including American diplomats. > > Those diplomats are watching the growth of the fraternal > orders with interest. > > "They loosen the bonds of the state by showing that > services and resources can be provided by people > themselves," said Vicky Huddleston, the head of the United > States Interests Section in Havana."For a Communist system, > that is a dangerous idea." > > Masons insisted that Cuban politics, like race, are not > discussed inside the temple's thick walls. But they say > their talks are free-rang
Re: [CTRL] The End of the World...Maybe
-Caveat Lector- William Shannon wrote: > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace37.html > > The End of the World...Maybe > > by Bob Wallace Wow, this guy's a REAL trip! Lots of ass-kickin' articles in his archive. "Ayn Rand, Science-Fiction Writer" was an *extremely* entertaining read, as were several others I've just had the pleasure to go through. Thanks! http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace-arch.html http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Blurred Blair
-Caveat Lector- >From http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4404183,00.html }}}>Begin The terrifying naivety of Blair the great intervener The prime minister risks turning Britain into the Pentagon's useful idiot Hugo Young Tuesday April 30, 2002 The Guardian What Tony Blair sees when he looks at Iraq is a country that has the ingredients to be a good and happy one. It has 60 million people and 9% of the world's oil reserves. It could be one of the world's attractions rather than its principal pariah, and would be so if only it weren't ruled by a murderous psychopath, the worst villain in contemporary history. The world needs protection from this evil maniac but, just as important, Iraq and Iraqis need help. Here is the moral challenge of the hour, and perhaps the supreme task facing political leaders in 2002. Occupying this place in Mr Blair's mind, Iraq exemplifies the most extraordinary change in British life since he was elected prime minister five years ago tomorrow. You can keep class sizes, hospital waiting lists, cuts in car crime or the fine-tuning of economic progress. These are tasks all governments take on with variable success, and any shifts, though important, are at the margin. What's new is Britain's evolution, entirely at the personal hand of the PM, into an eager player anywhere in the world where there is work, usually moral work, to do: whether with a handful of retired security men in Israel/ Palestine; a few hundred troops camped permanently in Sierra Leone; a couple of thousand in Afghanistan; or, potentially, any number of thousands one day in Iraq. For Mr Blair is a driven intervener. He believes in that role for Britain, and defines the national interest more broadly than any leader since Gladstone. Mrs Thatcher's sense of the national interest confined it to the defence of Britain's shores and possessions. Mr Blair reaches beyond that, beyond our local continent, into the far blue yonder, anywhere the world might be made a better place by the benign intervention of a good, stable, rich and militarily capable country like Britain. Iraq is the place where this philosophy looks like next being tested. Such zeal for intervention, as a way of making the world better rather than the nation stronger, is unique in modern Europe. You never find it among French or German leaders. Even De Gaulle didn't really fit the category, being more of a pallid Metternich than a pious Gladstone. But the comparison also stands against contemporary America. The Bush administration's performance since September 11 has been driven not by a desire to improve the world but to make American territory safe from the world, and the world safe for American domination. The world will get some benefit. But those non-travelling Republicans on the Hill, like Bush himself, do not have a developed concept of disinterested idealism. If they go into Iraq, they will leave when the business is done. The only business that matters is to kill off Saddam and thus protect Americans, coupled with the name of Israel. Mr Blair's impulse is different. Several conversations with high officials persuade me that we misunderstand what, from his viewpoint, the Iraq option is really about. London tends to be seen as a restraining force on Wash ington, a wise tactical adviser on the side of caution. In the early tactics against al-Qaida - notably the ultimatum to the Taliban and the binding in of Putin and Russia - Mr Blair did, I can believe, have an influential voice. But over Iraq, the dynamic is to some extent reversed. Rather than being a restrainer, Mr Blair is quite eager for action. His catalogue of infamy against Saddam and the Iraqi arsenal of mass-destruction weapons, including Saddam's imminent nuclear capacity, is not qualified by doubt. The moral crusader offers a clarity of vision that makes some, though not all, officials in Washington tremble. Sometimes it almost seems as though the US is helping the UK rather than vice versa. If America can help the great intervener, so much the better. Here we have a leader delighted to have at his disposal the greatest power on earth, abetting any moral cause in which he believes. Another consideration pushes him the same way. He believes it is Britain's duty to ensure that the US is not isolated in its great geo-political campaign against terrorism. He hears America accused of unilateralism, and counts it as a virtue on Britain's part to stand as the visible guarantor that this is not the case. On trade issues, abrasiveness is permissible. But on global security, irrespective of the substance, Britain's gift to America is to demonstrate, by standing shoulder-to- shoulder or flying wing-to-wing, that the unilateralist calumnies emanating from the Middle East and Europe are false. This Blairite attitude has a public history. Kosovo prompted him to articulate a doctrine of moral interventionism, and September 11 drew a great oration to the Labour party conference. But
