Abolishing the Federal Government and the Presidency in Seventeen Easy Steps

     Given the recent scandals in Washington, D.C. regarding Russian and Ukrainian spying and business deals, election sabotage and interference, and association of presidents with known child sex traffickers, it is becoming obvious to more and more Americans that the current federal government with which we are currently burdened, has become unbearably corrupt, as well as financially and morally bankrupt.

     The solution to these problems, in my opinion, must be to abolish the federal government, the Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. Additionally - possibly - to call for a new national government, if reassurances can be made that such a government would be tolerable). But most importantly, to incarcerate (and, if necessary, charge with treason and/or sedition) any politicians or federal officials whom have engaged in unlawful or immoral actions involving representatives of foreign governments.

     If I were asked what federal officials, and/or the president, could and should do, to abolish the federal government as soon as possible, then my advice would be what follows below.

     I would recommend that the president take as many of these sixteen steps as possible - and as quickly as possible, and in the order shown below - in order to achieve abolition of the United States federal Government as swiftly, successfully, and peaceably as possible.

     This list should be viewed as a set of stages.
     The purpose of the first two steps (Phase One) is to communicate clearly to the people why the federal government needs to be abolished. This will help ensure that the president who promises to abolish the government, has the people's trust and support when inaugurated.
     The remainder of the steps should be taken by the president as soon as possible following inauguration. Those steps include the first phase following inauguration (Phase Two). In Phase Two, the president makes sure that foreign nations recognize that the president was elected lawfully, in order to avoid an international incident, and ensure the stability of the new administration while it attempts to abolish the federal government (as the people will want it to do).
     In Phase Three, the president gives Congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive branch officials under the president's control, one last chance (each) to cease cooperating with the continued creation and enforcement of widely unpopular and unconstitutional laws. Many of these cannot even rightfully be called laws, because most unconstitutional acts of Congress, are unconstitutional because they disregard limitations which were put in the Constitution with the specific intent of ensuring that the states and the people retained a significant and meaningful measure of the right to govern themselves (as opposed to being governed by a central authority).
     In Phase Four, the president takes all steps necessary to abolish the entire federal government (with the exception of the offices of the president, and one diplomat for each foreign nation), and issues declarations and public statements explaining and confirming these moves.
     In Phase Five (providing that most or all of steps 7 through 10 were successful), the president declares that efforts to abolish the federal government were successful, and makes statements and invitations which recognize the sovereignty and independence of the fifty states as separate countries, each with their own diplomatic authorities.
     In Phase Six (after the world has recognized the freedom of each state), the president calls for the consideration of a new national or federal government and a new constitutional convention, weighs in on this matter, fires all diplomats still employed federally, and vacates the office of the presidency (leaving nobody to succeed).



     The Seventeen Steps:

Phase One (Before Inauguration):

     Step 1: Communicate, and Campaign on, the Need to Abolish the Federal Government

     Step 2: Communicate the Legal Rationale for Abolishing the Federal Government

Phase Two (Immediately After Inauguration):
     Step 3: Invite Ambassadors to Recognize the Legitimacy of the President's Election

Phase Three (After Achieving Recognition of the Election Results):

     Step 4: Urge Congress and the States to Convene for an Emergency Amendment Session

     Step 5: File Lawsuits Which Could Severely Limit Federal Authority

     Step 6: Nullify Executive Orders

Phase Four: (If Steps 4 Through 6 Have Little to No Effect):
     Step 7: Revoke the Authority to Enforce Federal Laws

     Step 8: Order the Congress to Disband

     Step 9: Charge Corrupt Officials with Sedition and Treason
     Step 10: Firing the Vice President and Refusing to Nominate Cabinet Members

     Step 11: Order the Arrest of All Persons Cooperating with the Federal Government

Phase Five (After the Federal Government is Abolished):

     Step 12: Declare the Federal Government Legally Foreign to the States and the People

     Step 13: Invite Ambassadors to Recognize the Sovereignty and Independence of the States

     Step 14: Insist Upon the States' Freedom to Conduct Diplomacy and Join the United Nations

Phase Six (After the World Has Recognized the Independence of the States):

     Step 15: Call for a Constitutional Convention
     Step 16: Fire All Federal Diplomats

     Step 17: Vacate the Presidency

Phase One (Before Inauguration):

     Step 1: Communicating, and Campaigning on, the Need to Abolish the Federal Government

     Make it clear that the presidential candidate, and the congressional and senatorial candidates, are running with the intent to abolish the positions for which they're running.

     It should be emphasized that various notable figures in pop culture have suggested doing without government (such as Kid Rock, who said something to the effect of "What if we decided to have no government, but everybody promised to be cool?"; and Alec Baldwin, who said, while portraying Donald Trump on N.B.C.'s Saturday Night Live, "Maybe it's time we take a break from having a president for about a year."). Forces in favor of abolishing the federal government should make it clear that they could not agree more.

     Attempt to make abolishing he federal government; incarceration of dozens of high ranking federal officials; and full investigations of Jeffrey Epstein, everyone listed in Epstein's black book of contacts, Ghislaine Maxwell, Joe and Hunter Biden, John Podesta and James Alefantis (etc.); into mainstream policies and platform planks (if possible, resulting in multiple parties adopting such positions).

    Additionally, for any officials running for federal positions having promised to work to abolish the federal government, it should be clear that they intend to return the power of attorney back to the people from which they have been borrowing it (through political representation).

     Moreover, campaigns to abolish the federal government should explain that repealing laws, and dismantling and abolishing entire departments, will drastically reduce not only government costs, but also the number of armed government law enforcement officials, as well as the number of violent attacks committed by government agents against civilians.

     Step 2: Communicating the Legal Rationale for Abolishing the Federal Government

     In order to justify, and provide legal context and rationale for the legality of, abolishing the U.S. federal Government, campaigns to abolish the federal government should cite the fact that the Declaration of Independence recognized the people's pre-existing right to alter or abolish our government if it becomes destructive of the liberties which it declared an intent to preserve.
     Additionally, at least six state constitutions recognize a right to reform, alter, or abolish government; -and many nations acknowledge the right to revolution and/or the right to rebel - so those facts should not go ignored in the president's statements.

     [Note: The Supreme Court, historically, has not considered the Declaration of Independence to be organic law, and thus the court does not consider the Declaration to be part of the U.S. Code. However, Congress traditionally has recognized the Declaration of Independence as organic law. This information may be relevant in order to pursue a successful legal defense for the case in favor of abolishing the government.]

Phase Two (Immediately After Inauguration):

     Step 3: Inviting Ambassadors to Recognize the Legitimacy of the President's Election

     [Note: Step 3, and subsequent steps, should all be taken on January 20th, in the afternoon and evening immediately after the inauguration of the president, and within the first 24 or 48 hours of the inauguration.]

     The president should instruct all sitting United States ambassadors to foreign countries, to meet with their counterparts in those foreign nations, and ask those counterparts whether they will affirm that the election of the president was carried out duly and legally.

     This step will help reduce the risk that an international incident (whether diplomatic or military) could flare up, at the news that a presidential candidate has been elected who promised to abolish the position of president as well as the national government of the United States. This step will also help ensure that foreign nations will interact with the states in good faith, following the next several steps which the president should take to abolish the government.






Phase Three (After Achieving Recognition of the Election Results):


     Step 4: Urging Congress and the States to Convene for an Emergency Amendment Session

     The president should strongly urge Congress to convene for a brief, one-time, emergency legislative session, to give Congress one last chance to amend the Constitution in a meaningful way.
     While doing this, the president should cite the need to review the existing set of national emergencies (of which there are dozens and dozens, and probably too many); and the need to declare national emergencies regarding civil liberties, due process, government transparency, and corruption.
     The president should do this, while specifically demanding that the members of Congress authorize their own arrest for misdemeanors as well as felonies, and also demanding that Congress refrain from interfering with any efforts by the states to hold a constitutional convention.
     The president should accomplish this by insisting that Congress and the states work together to immediately pass an amendment which would amend (and repeal a portion of) Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. That amendment should replacing that clause with the following language: "The Senators and Representatives shall not be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance of the Session of their respective Houses, nor in going to nor returning from the same, and in addition to any Speech or Debate in either House, they may be questioned in any other Place."
     The president should additionally insist that the convention of states consider amendments which would repeal the U.S. Constitution in its entirety and revert to a confederation, and/or abolish the office of the presidency (by striking Article II, Section 1).
     In the (extremely likely) event that Congress were to refuse to accept the president's insistence that this emergency legislation be considered (i.e., proposals to allow the arrest of congressmen for misdemeanors, revert to a confederation, and abolish the presidency), then the president should proceed with any and all plans to order the Congress to disband, since it will have signaled that it is not willing to acknowledge the right to hold a constitutional convention as acknowledged in Article V of the Constitution.

     Step 5:  Filing Lawsuits Which Could Severely Limit Federal Authority

     The president and the new administration should file lawsuits intended to make it impossible for the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid promptly weighing in on three key constitutional issues, the outcome of which rulings could have major impacts, potentially including the abolition of the federal government as we know it.

     These lawsuits include suits which will pressure the Supreme Court to issue rulings:

     1) whether there is any constitutional merit to the claims that Amendment XVI (income tax) was passed unlawfully;

     2) whether there is any constitutional merit to the claims that the Titles of Nobility Amendment was passed as Amendment XIII, but has been disregarded despite having been lawfully passed by Congress but not signed by the president; and

     3) whether there is a difference between "the Constitution of the United States" and "the Constitution for the United States", and additionally, within that controversy, whether the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 violates the provision in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that the federal government exercise exclusive jurisdiction only within the District of Columbia itself, and limited to 100 square miles ("ten miles, squared").

     A ruling on the first issue could have the result of repealing and abolishing the income tax, which would defund the federal government by depriving the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) from collecting approximately half of the total amount of receipts from which the federal government derives its revenue. With its funding halved, the federal government will struggle to fund its enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws.

     A ruling on the second issue could help prohibit federal officials - especially judges and congressmen - from receiving any form of foreign honors, titles, or privileges whatsoever. If the language in the Titles of Nobility Amendment becomes law, then federal judges will likely lose much or all of their power to issue orders which affect the states and localities.

     A ruling on the third issue will help determine whether the federal government is, in a strict legal sense, exercising exclusive jurisdiction anywhere besides the District of Columbia (for example, on federally managed and owned lands, and on U.S. military bases overseas, and in our various overseas territories and possessions, etc.).
     The president should additionally insist that the Supreme Court issue a ruling regarding whether Congress's refusal to allow an emergency convention to amend the Constitution (as described in Step 4).

     If the Supreme Court refuses to take any of these cases, then the president should call for the court to be abolished. If the justices of the Supreme Court refuse to accept their dismissal and the court's abolition, then the president should call for their arrest. These arrests could be performed by branches of the national guard, officials representing the states or community governments, and/or volunteer citizen militia wishing to assist in a citizens' arrests.

     Step 6: Nullifying Executive Orders

     The president should undertake all efforts possible to nullify all past executive orders, presidential signing statements, and line-item vetoes which remain active and have no constitutional merit. These may include executive orders which the president believes to be destructive of civil liberties, or destructive to the rights of the people to be governed in a decentralized fashion.

     The president may need to use both active and passive methods in order to accomplish this. Likely, some executive orders (etc.) can be ignored through the president refusing to issue orders to enforce them, while others may have to be accomplished through presidential actions. These may include new executive orders which invalidate old executive orders.

     Whatever the case, the presidential candidate who intends to abolish the federal government should be prepared to undertake whatever legal means necessary to rescind, or otherwise invalidate, the executive orders which still exist and have been  destructive to freedom or empowering of tyranny.

     These include, but are not limited to, executive orders which: 1) deprive accused people of the right to a trial; 2) establish and maintain secret prisons; 3) instruct officials to deprive detainees and incarcerated migrants of their right to a basic standard of health and safety while in custody; and 4) provide for "continuity of government" programs and exercises which make it difficult to abolish the federal government.

Phase Four: (If Steps 4 Through 6 Have Little to No Effect):

     Step 7: Revoking the Authority to Enforce Federal Laws

     On the president's first day in office, the president and/or the new administration should insist upon the president's right to tell all armed bureaucrats working for the federal government to surrender their badges and to return or lay down any and all arms issued to them by the federal government.

     The rationale for this should be that the president has the right, as the chief executive of the nation's armed forces, to issue orders requiring the firing and disarmament of any and all law enforcement officials continuing to claim to work for the federal government, and attempting to enforce federal laws (which will, as provided in Step 4, have been repealed en masse just prior to Step 5).

     Step 8: Ordering the Congress to Disband

     The president should make an appeal to the people, explaining that the president would not be in the White House unless the people who elected that candidate truly wanted the candidate to abolish the federal government, and truly believed that the candidate would do so if given the opportunity.

     The president should use these facts to justify and explain the president's next step: an order for the United States Congress - i.e., the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives - to disband. If the Senators and Representatives just elected, refuse their dismissal, then state or community officials (or private citizens) should remove them from the chambers of Congress, and take them into custody.

     Step 9: Charging Corrupt Officials with Sedition and Treason

     On January 20th, the president should be prepared with orders to indict all federal officials (justices, elected officials, law enforcement officers, etc.) who continue to serve under the guise and authority of the federal government, and who continue to attempt to enforce federal law.

     The list of this set of federal officials should be made up primarily of the following: 1) elected and appointed officials who abused their oaths of office by engaging in corrupt foreign business deals and/or election collusion; 2) justices, senators, and congresspersons who refused to vacate their offices; and 3) potentially dangerous federal law enforcement officials, intent on continuing to enforce federal law after the authority to do so is rescinded, whom are not likely to give up their arms without a fight.

     Most importantly, the president should be prepared to charge the first set of officials enumerated above, with sedition and/or treason (whichever is appropriate).

     Step 10: Firing the Vice President and Refusing to Nominate Cabinet Members

     The president should ask for the resignation of the running mate who was elected along with the president, and/or undertake any and all peaceable measures possible which could prevent the vice-president-elect from taking an oath of office.
     The president should also refuse to cooperate with any demands to hire a chief of staff, and also with demands to nominate cabinet members. The president should explain that at least half of those cabinet members would only end up heading federal departments which lack proper constitutional authorization (so most of what they do is unlawful).
     The president should dismiss the vice-president-elect, and refuse to hire a chief of staff and nominate a cabinet, in order to prevent those persons from being arrested for cooperating with the federal government (which they would not deserve, having been elected specifically in order to abolish the federal government).

     Step 11: Ordering the Arrest of All Persons Cooperating with the Federal Government

     The president should issue an order which will prohibit, and provide punishment of, all state and local officials, and all citizens of the states, who continue to cooperate with officials claiming to work under the auspices of anything described as a federal or national government of or for the United States.

     If circumstances merit and necessitate it, then the president should be prepared to charge any such "federal officials" - or persons aiding and abetting them - with treason (and/or sedition) against the people and the states.
     The president should issue just under two hundred exemptions, however. The president, and one diplomat for each foreign nation, should be retained, until such time as the president would be prepared to relinquish them from the federal employment rolls. This will be necessary in order to ensure that the president completes the mission to abolish the federal government, and in order to ensure that foreign nations will accept the sovereignty of each American state after that mission is over.

Phase Five (After the Federal Government is Abolished):

     Step 12: Declaring the Federal Government Legally Foreign to the States and the People

     The president should declare intent to re-affirm the only provision of the 1789 Treaty of Paris which is left standing; i.e., the provision which recognizes that the states are, and of right should be free to behave as, "free, sovereign, and independent" states.

     While issuing this declaration, the president should explain that: 1) without recognizing the freedom and sovereignty and independence of each U.S. state, they cannot rightfully be called "states"; and 2) the federal government is, legally speaking, foreign to the states, and to the people.

     The president should predicate the validity of the second point, on the facts that the federal government has alienated the people, the federal government has treated the people as strangers and aliens in their own lands (as if they had no rights), and the federal government has transported accused people to far-off secret prisons for indeterminate lengths of time and without trial (which was one of the main reasons, if not the biggest reason, the Declaration of Independence was drafted in the first place). The president should cite Grievance 8 and Grievance 9, of the Declaration, in order to explain and justify the decision to declare the states' and the people's independence from federal and national government.

     This declaration by the president should be made publicly, and should be billed as "the Second Declaration of Independence" of the United - and fully sovereign - States of America.

     Step 13: Inviting Ambassadors to Recognize the Sovereignty and Independence of the States

     The president should instruct all sitting United States ambassadors to foreign countries, to meet with their counterparts in those foreign nations, and ask those counterparts to affirm that they will not undertake any actions resisting or challenging the president's orders to dissolve and abolish national government for the United States.

     This step will help reduce the risk that an international incident (whether diplomatic or military) could flare up, at the news that the national government is unstable or could soon disappear (because the federal government's abolition is likely to have far-reaching and grave effects on the state of world peace and world finance, as well as on the state of society and the freedom revolution at home).

     Diplomats from the United Kingdom, in particular, should be invited to re-affirm what it affirmed in 1789 when that nation recognized that America was no longer under British control. Namely, that - as provided in the 1789 Treaty of Paris - the American states remain free, independent, and sovereign. 

     This step may, and hopefully will, have the effect of insuring against attempts from within the remnants of the federal government, to either: 1) engage in collusion with foreign governments abroad; 2) challenge or depose the president, or to create another national government; or 3) invade with a foreign army, thus occupying the states with a national government (albeit a foreign one).

     Step 14: Insisting Upon the States' Freedom to Conduct Diplomacy and Join the United Nations

     Immediately upon completing the tasks of ordering the abolition of the federal government, the president should point to the fact of widespread approval of that move, to make it clear that the authority to engage in diplomacy and trade, is now vested in the states themselves, or in the people.

     Next, the president should communicate with all fifty state governors, and insist that those states have the right to join the United Nations, to participate in its programs independently, and to participate in international diplomatic and trade deals without consulting any other governmental body. The president should also insist that each governor extend invitations for foreign diplomats to meet in their states' capitals, to acknowledge the sovereignty of each state, separately and in person.

     If necessary, the president should defend this insistence upon full state sovereignty, by citing the fact that even the Soviet Union (with its storied reputation for repression of both civil liberties and democracy) allowed the Ukraine and Belarus to be members of the United Nations long before the Soviet Union was finished being dismantled.

Phase Six (After the World Has Recognized the Independence of the States):

     Step 15: Calling for a Constitutional Convention

     [Note: This step should only be taken if, and after, it has become abundantly clear that there no longer remain any realistic challenges to the new administration's authority, nor to the federal government's abolition, nor to the states' total sovereignty and independence.]

     The president should call for a second constitutional convention of states. As provided in Article V, no amendment shall be considered which could potentially violate the provisions of Article I, Section 9 as amended.

     In defending the move to call for a constitutional convention, without citing the Constitution's authority, the president should cite the fact that Article V of the U.S. Constitution (which authorized constitutional convention) remained law before the president's inauguration, but was never taken seriously by Congress or enough state governors to make such a convention happen. This made reforming the federal government all but impossible, and made revolution or abolition inevitable.

     The president should call for a constitutional convention of states, to determine whether to create a new national or federal government. However, the president should insist that, if such a government is created, then it should only happen on the condition that the Bill of Rights is strengthened and clarified (or, at the very least, left alone).

     [Note: In my opinion, Amendments II, V, IX, and X could benefit the most from clarifying and modernizing language, through better encapsulating the spirit of liberty which informed the original intentions and original meanings of those amendments.]

     If a new national or federal government is formed as the result of these proceedings, then the most important matters which should be considered in the creation of new amendments, should revolve around: 1) what the structure of the new government should be, and in that issue, how to safeguard civil liberties and severely and explicitly limit the government's powers (which would hopefully include language resembling the suggested amendment outlined in Step 4); 2) how to have free, fair, and open elections; and 3) which measures to adopt in order to ensure the financial security of the new government (and the national economy in general).



     Step 16. Firing All Federal Diplomats

     The president should fire all diplomats still employed by the federal government (which shall have been retained this long solely for the purposes of ensuring international recognition of the legitimacy of the new administration).

     Step 17: Resigning the Presidency and Vacating the Oval Office

     Before the states and the people decide whether to convene for a constitutional convention, the president should announce resignation from the office of the President of the United States - and announce an intent that the office of the presidency be vacated forever, from this day forward (hopefully January 21st) - in a public address which explains the reasons for doing so.
     That address should include the president's thoughts regarding whether a constitutional convention should take place, and whether there is a justification for any national or federal government to exist again in the territory once occupied by the United States federal Government.
     The president should also communicate an opinion about whether positions like the presidency, the chief executive, and the unitary executive, ought to exist or be trusted ever again. This will help make it clear to the people that the president truly is about to become the last president (or, at least, the last president under this current constitution) upon the resignation that follows this address.
     If this public address is not televised live, then it should be either pre-recorded and broadcasted, or else a statement to the same effect should be sent to members of the press and officials representing the fifty states.
     If this public address is broadcast live, then the president should be shown signing a letter of resignation live on television, and then, the president should insist that everyone present in the Oval Office, leave the room immediately (i.e., the president and any remaining members of the president's retinue, members of the press, and/or any state governors or foreign diplomats invited and present for the resignation).

     Those interested in these topics may additionally wish to read my 2011 article "The Spooner Amendment", a suggested list of reforms to the U.S. Constitution. That article is available at the following address:

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/09/spooner-amendment.html

Based on Notes Taken on October 17th, 2019
Written on October 25th and 31st, 2019

Published on October 31st, 2019
Originally Published Under the Title
"Fourteen Recommendations Regarding How to Abolish
the Federal Government and the Presidency"

Ten Reasons to Consider Bioregionalism

     Bioregionalism is a set of views regarding how our politics, culture, and ecology should be shaped by our environment and surroundings; in particular based on “bioregions”. Bioregional politics is the idea that governments should make reforms which reshape government according to the previously existing bioregions which are found in nature.

     Perhaps the most important set of reforms which bioregionalists support, have to do with borders and boundaries. Bioregionalists suggest using to our advantage the mountain ranges and watersheds with which nature has already gifted us, to determine where political boundaries lie.

     Mountain ranges form the perimeters of watersheds, funneling all rain water into river valleys and towards the sea. Basins have mountain ranges as perimeters as well, although they do not funnel water towards the sea. Mountain ranges and seashores already tell us a lot about where the boundaries of these bioregions lie, and mountain ranges form natural borders, forming a natural protection against military invasion. So why not use mountain ranges as our borders?

     Here are ten reasons why making every watershed or bioregion into an independent nation – and replacing all currently existing “straight line” and river borders with mountain range and sea borders – will create a legally simpler, more ecologically sustainable, and all around better, world.

     1. SIMPLIFY BORDERS BY FOCUSING ON RIVER VALLEY POPULATIONS.

     The major civilizations around the world grew out of river valleys, and most populations (large or small) are centered on river valleys. River valleys – and the watersheds which bound them – just group people together conveniently. Bioregionalism would thus lead to increased political simplicity, in terms of where borders, boundaries, and jurisdictions are drawn. We don't have to guess about where the borders should be, nor do we have to suggest our own, if they already exist.

     2. SAVE MONEY, LIVES, AND EFFORT, BY AVOIDING MAKING BORDERS.

     Using mountain ranges as natural borders is more military and financially defensible than using rivers and lines as borders, and erecting physical borders. For one: building walls and fences takes work, when nature already did all the work for us which was necessary to create mountain ranges. When mountain ranges already exist that we can use for free, to do any more work creating borders would be an unnecessary waste of money, effort, labor, time, and resources.

     Mountain ranges form a physical barrier against military invasions, while river boundaries and “lines drawn on the ground by dead men” are much more difficult to defend against a military attack. Additionally, building-up physical defenses – such as walls and fencing – would be difficult to justify if our borders were mountains, than if our borders were to remain rivers and lines (like they are at the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders today), because the mountains already form physically huge barriers which are difficult for militaries to penetrate.

     Moreover, it is much more dangerous and difficult to climb a mountain range than it is to cross a river or a line on land; while people who are looking for a better and safer life for their families are much more likely to want to cross a river or a line than a mountain range (which means that people coming over a mountain range are much more likely to be attempting an invasion, than are people crossing a river or land boundary).

     Also, existing land borders are problematic for several reasons. Border walls unnecessarily restrict the flow of labor and capital, which has to move freely in order for trade to occur freely and without undue hindrance. Border walls are also unpopular, expensive, and sometimes resort to eminent domain takings. For those reasons, using the borders nature gave us - that is, mountain ranges - is just safer, more cost-efficient, and more labor-efficient, than making our own.

     3. REDUCE CONFLICT OVER RIVERS AND FRESH WATER.

     By ending the practice of using rivers as borders, a transition to bioregionalism will result in reduced conflict over sources of fresh water. As long as political and ethnic minorities are adequately represented and see their freedoms preserved, ending river boundaries will end the need for tribes to worry about rival tribes sneaking across the river and attacking them, or crossing the river to gain control over it.

     Reducing conflict over rivers – and affording full and equal human rights and legal rights, in the same political entity, to people on both sides - will also help reduce wars, terrorism, and kidnapping of members of one tribe by another, while increasing rates of intermarriage between tribes. In a bioregionalist independent state, all those who live in a river valley would be free to access it, and to control access to that river valley.

     4. SIMPLIFY & LOCALIZE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW.

     Grouping people together by river valley, can lead to increased political simplicity in terms of environmental policy and lawsuits, as well as in terms of borders. Water safety issues tend to affect people on the basis of the quality of “the local water supply”. So it only makes sense that political jurisdictions be broken down on the basis of which water supply affects which geographical community of people.

     Nowadays, watersheds are shared across multiple states; this state of affairs risks allowing the federal government to intervene in too many water pollution cases which could easily be resolved locally, within and by a single political entity occupying an entire watershed.

     Since mountain ranges funnel all water into a single river valley, anyone who is downstream of a water polluter will know that the tainted water came from the same jurisdiction (and the same watershed) in which they live. This will help people whose water is being polluted, track the source of their water pollution easily, because the source of water pollution will always be someone upstream who is in the same watershed. That means that in the vast majority of water pollution lawsuits, the plaintiff and defendant will be based in the same political jurisdiction, thus allowing the plaintiff to sue the defendant without creating a situation in which the outcome of the case could potentially affect the laws of two political entities. That helps bypass a potential conflict of interest between states, which only a higher authority (most likely a central government) could resolve with any finality.

     Bioregionalism will thus enable water pollution to be solved by the members of the community whom are most directly affected by it; whether as activists, as legislators on environmental policy, or as jurors in water pollution cases.

     5. MAKE WATERSHEDS SELF-CONTAINED & SELF-SUSTAINING
     Making watersheds self-contained in terms of environmental policy and military defense over borders, while using pre-existing mountain range borders to our full advantage, will increase the chances that an independent bioregionalist state could become economically and financially self-contained.

     This could be done several ways: 1) through enacting clean water reforms, and then putting the state on a path to sourcing all water from within the state; 2) through enacting reforms to putting the state on a trajectory of becoming ecologically and financially sustainable at the same time. This could be done through “Agenda 21” and “Green New Deal” -type measures, which would involve “re-greening” and retro-fitting buildings to be environmentally sustainable. This will help ensure an equitable distribution of wealth across geography, without threatening encroachment upon animal habitats and lands in need of preservation.

     Perhaps fulfilling certain standards regarding environmental sustainability and economic equity could be used as a way to justify “fast-tracking” bioregionalist independence movements (such as Cascadia in the Northwest United States and Southwestern Canada) and securing their status as fully independent states.

     6. NATURAL BORDERS LAST LONGER AND DON'T NEED FORTIFICATION.
     Determining borders based on mountain ranges, made by nature, will result in borders lasting longer – much longer – than they do now. As it stands right now, borders exist – and change - because of political instability, military conflict, and the need to micromanage and control people.

     To resolve to permanently base all borders on natural geological features, on the other hand – and to do it worldwide say, in the U.N., in an international court, or via some other method – could help guard against the risk of military invasion, through permanently ensuring that borders will never change.

     Ensuring that borders will never change, will especially help guard against the risk of a violent invasion, if full rights to control one's share of resources are afforded to any and all people who come into the watershed peacefully. That's because guaranteeing full voting rights and full right to access one's share of water and other resources, will reduce the likelihood that foreigners will resort to using force or violence in order to invade, or else resort to invading with intentions of overthrowing the government. Doing such things would be unnecessary to guarantee their safety, freedom, and ability to control the resource they need to survive.

     7. HELP PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS ATTUNE TO NATURE.
     As explained above, if borders were determined by mountain ranges, then borders would last a very long time. The only problem is what to do when there earthquakes take place, which drastically change the incline of the land and change the courses of rivers.

     Fortunately, however, earthquakes that make such significant change to the outline of the bioregion do not come around that often. Additionally – especially in the short term – earthquakes alter rivers' courses in a much less drastic manner than the manner in which they change the perimeters of bioregions (i.e., the general location of mountain ranges and seashores).

     But whether or not we experience geological events significant enough to affect and change borders during our own lifetimes, adopting bioregionalism will help put us on a track to being able to do that easily in case we ever have to. Bioregionalism is fundamentally about making sure that our ecology, culture, and politics follow nature's lead. “Taking nature's lead” in terms of what we do about borders and environmental policy is how we accomplish that, and basing borders on mountain ranges is the first step.

     But it's not as simple as just redrawing the borders; part of that first step has to involve planning for how to change borders in the manner which is least likely to result in conflict and competition over resources. Maybe when only earthquakes can change the borders, people will not only have a respect for nature's ultimate authority over our political affairs; maybe people will wonder whether God Himself is telling us when we need to change our borders.

     8. CREATE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LAND REFORM.
     Re-focusing politics on bioregions and the needs of the ecology, could help restore attention to the need for improvement of environmental quality (such as our air, water, and land), and to the need to ensure that land can be distributed in an equitable fashion across the country and across the world.

Increased interest in, and popularity of, bioregionalism, could thus lead to increased attention to land reforms such as Land Value Taxation, and the representation of land in legislative branches and/or electoral processes. Land Value Taxation would reform landed property ownership, tenancy, economic rents, land allocation, taxation, welfare, and what to do about lands that fall into blight and unuseability; while representing land in legislative branches or electoral processes could help reduce the ability of elites in government to undermine the will of the people.

     The U.S. Senate (and the 100 votes in the Electoral College which represent it) exist because people are not supposed to be the only thing represented in legislative branches and elections. The Electoral College is structured the way it is – in an anti-democratic fashion – to make presidential candidates more likely to visit low-population states.

     However, in practice, the purpose of the Electoral College has lately been to balance-out the voting power of high-population states by giving power to elite superdelegates, often working in government, who choose our electors; while until the 17^th Amendment the purpose of the Senate was to balance-out the voting power of high-population states by giving power to governors who appointed senators.

     Instead of using the power of the elite to balance-out the power of large populations, why don't we use land? Shouldn't we be more worried about making sure that people and the planet can co-exist, than about making sure that elites in government, campaign superdelegates, and elite landowners, have enough sway in policymaking?

     In the U.S. Congress, there is a Senate and a House of Representatives. Why not add a third house, to represent land area? Perhaps it could be comprised of environmental scientists, climate activists, environmental health specialists, food and agricultural scientists, etc.. Each state could decide independently whether those officials would be appointed or elected.

     A house representing land area could even replace the U.S. Senate, and probably should. Replacing the Senate with a literal “House of Commons” (that is, a house whose members represent not population, but parcels of “the commons”, i.e., common land) would not only reduce elite power in government; it could also help save operating costs. In particular, the entire budget of the U.S. Senate. Environmental experts would likely opt to receive much less than the $200,000 salaries to which senators are accustomed, so it's possible that such a “House of Commons” could even afford to have more than one hundred members (which could help represent land in Congress efficiently).
     Increasing the representation of land will hopefully also result in an increased attention to the needs of ranchers and farmers in large, low-population states, to use resources (including, possibly, federal resources) to make the area habitable for population. Some farmers believe that the federal government should be paying ranchers directly to do the work that is necessary to make use of the land we have (without harming native species, of course).
     Increasing influence in Congress based on land area, will help represent nature itself in the halls of Congress, while replacing the elite with nature as the only thing capable of bossing large populations around (as it should be).

     9. DIMINISH FAITH IN BORDERS AND END TWO-DIMENSIONAL THINKING, AND
     10. REDUCE CONFLICT OVER LAND AREA.
     Adopting mountain ranges as borders, will show that river borders and land boundaries don't work nearly as well as the pre-existing borders which nature gave us. This will help reduce faith in the current set of borders, which by and large is composed of river borders that enable competition over water instead of reducing it, and of “lines on the ground, drawn on a map by dead men, to mark the places where their armies decided to stop fighting”.

     There is enough conflict over resources in the world, without conflict being viewed as a struggle for territory itself; this “two-dimensional thinking” only compounds the level of conflict and competition for resources. Nearly all resources which are useful to us, are three-dimensional, not two-dimensional; water, air, foods, consumer goods, etc..
     But land area is not a resource which we can consume. We can make use of land area, but monopolistic, sovereign control over two-dimensional land territory is not necessary; neither to secure one's safety, nor to subscribe to the services provided by a government.

     Suppose that, in a small ten-story building, one family occupies each level; and each family for some reason wants to be part of a different political system. That is possible, as long as they are not stopped from leaving the building by the people at the bottom floor, nor by anyone else. As long as government employees can logistically reach a group of people who want to subscribe to and receive that government's services, then there is no reason to limit such a government from doing so. There is especially no reason to require a government selected by one family in that building, to force all other families in that building to subscribe to its services (based on the idea that if all ten families live on the same parcel of land, they must subscribe to the same government, because statist governments are territorial). Neither the family at the top of the building, nor the family at the bottom, nor any government, ought to be free to stop any household from choosing which government it wants to be a part of. If free travel throughout the hallways, staircases, and elevators of the building can be secured – and especially if helipads can be set up on the roof – then there will always remain the potential for free association between different governments and different households at that address.

     There is no reason for governments to run based on territorial boundaries. Granted, changing where our statist borders are, and changing what they're based on, will not end the territorial nature of statist government. That is to say that it will not change the operation of the state based on the definition “an entity capable of wielding a credible monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory” (“territory” being the operative word).

     But fortunately, reforming our borders will make more people question the set of borders which currently exists right now. And we can't envision the sort of “three-dimensional government” which I've described above, unless and until we see that the current set of borders isn't working.

     Fortunately, since bioregionalist reforms would likely result in adopting the kind of simultaneous ecological and economic reforms which I outlined in #6 above, mixed-use development (a type of zoning ensuring a mix of uses in a neighborhood) would probably become more popular and widespread. If areas practicing mixed-use development begin to devote different levels of buildings to different uses, then that will result in “multi-level mixed-use zoning” or “zoning with mixed use by level”. If that practice is successful and takes off, then in addition to having different economic uses on each level, more people would be able to conceptualize what “three-dimensional government” looks like, and communities could foster different political membership by each household or level of a building.

     “Three-dimensional government”, or “spatial government”, could mean panarchist proposals such as Functional Overlapping and Competing Jurisdictions, and National Personal Autonomy. These systems propose creating a sort of “government without borders”.

     Another thing that will help visualize three-dimensional government – as well as reduce conflict and competition over land area and territory – is “building up”. While making more efficient use of land area is important, making more efficient use of space is too. The most important way to do both of those (aside from to actually expand into space) is to build up and let people live on top of each other. “Building up instead of building out” will help us maximize the efficiency of use of the spaces which human settlements are already occupying, thus avoid the need to continue expanding outwards into surrounding areas. The fewer resources we want to devote towards the difficult process of economizing large amounts of land (all of which we might not need), the more we should focus on building upwards – that is, building on top of existing structures – without urbanizing any more land area (destroying forests and other environments in the process).

     I urge my readers to learn about bioregionalism, bioregions, the locations of the various watersheds and their mountain and sea boundaries, the movement for the independence of the Cascadia watershed, and the various bioregionalist and panarchist proposals which could potentially result in either the drastic reform of borders or else in their total abolition.

     I would also like to urge my readers to read my May 2013 article “Cascadia Proposal”, which contains a map and an outline of how a legislative body could be constructed for the bioregion. What I have referred to above as a “House of Commons”, is called a “Council on Natural Resources” in the “Cascadia Proposal” article. That 2013 article is available at the following link:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/cascadia-proposal.html

Written and originally published on September 2^nd, 2019

Based on notes taken on August 31^st, 2019

Reaction to the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Syria, and Thoughts on Kurdistan

     On December 19^th, 2018, claiming that I.S.I.S. has been defeated in Syria, President Donald Trump announced that within thirty days, the U.S. military would withdraw 2,000 troops from that country, in a complete withdrawal.

     I applaud the move to leave Syria; and to leave any country. I hope to hear more announcements like this about Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and other countries. I also hope that, as soon as possible, the U.S. dismantles its 800 or more military bases overseas, and stations no troop farther than 100 miles from our shores.

     But while I support leaving Syria, I have some doubts as to whether the president may have ulterior motives in leaving Syria, and may not have peace in mind as a genuine interest or motivation.

     I have written this article in order to make it publicly known what my position is on Syria, and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country; by publishing both my immediate reaction to the announcement, as well as my opinions on the story as it has developed between December 19^th and now (January 7^th, 2019).

     Before reading my initial reaction to the news about Syria, it is necessary to explain a bit of background information.

     Concerning the first paragraph below: Murray Bookchin was a libertarian communalist political philosopher and social theorist, who developed a school of thought which has come to be known as Bookchinism. Shortly after Trump's announcement that the U.S. would pull out of Syria, Murray Bookchin's daughter Debbie, an author and a supporter of Kurdish autonomy, tweeted in criticism of the announcement. The autonomous region of Turkey called Rojava, is populated by Kurds, and is governed according to Bookchin's principles; namely, it is a decentralized federation that values regional autonomy.

     Concerning the end of the second paragraph: I consider our alliance with Israel to be a significant contributing cause to the reason why the U.S. was in Syria to begin with. Israel and Syria aren't just neighbors, they have a border dispute; over the Golan Heights. The claims that I.S.I.S., and supposed Iranian proxy terrorist group Hezbollah, are in the country, may well be true, but they also serve as convenient excuses for the U.S. to promote joint U.S.-Israeli interests in the region. If we want to fight Iran, then we should fight Iran directly, not its proxies (not that I want us to fight Iran, I don't).

     Concerning the third paragraph: Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was described as calling for the destruction of Israel when he quoted Ayatollah Khamenei, who said “The regime that is occupying Jerusalem will vanish from the pages of history.”, which could be merely an expression of grief over the tragedy that led to the occupation of Palestine, the Nakba, in which 750,000 Palestinians were displaced, when the Israeli state was founded.

     The following is the original text of my first published reaction, written on December 21^st, 2018, and posted to Facebook.

     Noam Chomsky and Murray Bookchin's daughter both say that Trump's move to pull troops out of Syria will only put the people of Rojava in danger. Rojava is quite possibly the best example of a libertarian communalist society in the Middle East, if not the whole world, right now. They may not even be able to survive without American help.

     But on the other hand, America simply leaving them the fuck alone could cause Rojava to grow stronger. Aside from it being none of our business in the first place, because we're not supposed to have strong allies like Israel anyway.

     The fact that there's a link between Syria and Hezbollah and Iran, is meaningless to me. Iran doesn't want to destroy Israel; the comments of Ahmadinejad (quoting the Ayatollah) were willfully distorted to achieve that appearance.

     Also, we have a giant military base in Southeast Turkey, at Diyarbakir, which is a staging facility for our wars in the Middle East. So maybe dismantle that base, and Rojava will be fine.

     But what the fuck do I know?

     Two days later, on December 23^rd, 2018 - after a friend rebuked me for being too cautious about the possible negative consequences of the U.S. military leaving Syria, and too open to the idea of keeping U.S. troops there - I wrote a second reaction to clarify my position. That reaction read:

     To be clear, we should get the fuck out of Syria and Afghanistan as soon as possible, leaving neither troops nor bases behind.

     It's hard to say that, knowing that us moving out could expose Syria to a power vacuum that could be filled by Turkey, which the U.S. has had too good relations with, despite its [Turkey's] abuses.

     I don't fear the Syrian power vacuum being filled by Iran, because Western media have lied about Iran's intentions so much. Not to say that there would be no problems if that vacuum were filled by Iran, or even Russia.

     Whenever we get out, and whatever happens, I hope that leftists, Democrats, and libertarians are not ashamed to admit Trump "being right", if it means ending our involvement in one of the many wars we're currently involved in.

But we also need to be aware of how the filling of the Syrian power vacuum by Turkey – which I think will be the inevitable result of our exit – was really enabled by America and other Western actors to begin with.

     We need to not only get out of Syria, but also think about ending our ties with abusive regimes such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that have committed serious human rights abuses (long imprisonment, cruel and unusual punishment, corporal punishment, human trafficking, gender oppression, etc.).

     I'd like to add some comments, clarifying my position on human rights, the nations that abuse them, and the fallacy that imposing import tariffs help restore human rights to nations which abuse them.

     I would not consider Israel immune from allegations and investigations of human rights abuses (with its occupation of territory in defiance of international law, and its refusal to promise not to sell nuclear weapons to other countries, and a number of other problems). Nor would I consider it inappropriate to wonder whether China's human rights and labor abuses should be criticized. Every country should be looked at; every government and every authority should be questioned; not excluded, Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria.

     I say that we should suspect every country of abuses, full well knowing that if we do not trade with a country, then we are likely to have war with that country. That is why I do not support tariffs, because they don't work. Tariffs impose a cost on domestic importers in America, not the foreign firms they're intended to target, so they don't hurt the governments and firms that are carrying out the abuses. The state and its cronies can change the law and legally steal people's money, in a way that deflects and defers and externalizes the costs of the tariffs onto other people, and they do.

     Foreign tariffs only make money for the foreign government, at the expense of foreign exporters and American importers. Money in the hands of governments will never be used to help workers, nor to make-up for nor prevent abuses, but only used to continue and sustain those abuses. If Americans can understand that, then we should also be able to understand that our foreign trading partners might not want to pay a tariff that effectively results in the donation of money to the U.S. military.

     Think about it: If money is fungible, and any tax can be matched with any spending purpose, then isn't that what is happening? The tariff helps the U.S. government balance its budget (as if it ever does that), or at least helps the government sustain itself, so that it can run the military, the Office of the Trade Representative, and every other thing it does.

     My point in saying this is that we ought to have free trade – that is, free movement of labor and capital – with every country that does not commit, or condone, human rights and labor abuses, and other types of deprivations of civil rights and civil liberties. We shouldn't have a situation in which we try to simply tax our problem away, by taxing things that don't make sense to tax. Taxing the importation of goods only makes that good more expensive, more costly, available in fewer places, or all of the above.

     We should make sure that we are not ourselves guilty of the crimes of which we accuse other countries, and raise our standards for ourselves first, to set a good example, instead of expecting other countries to be better than we are. And if we want to identify certain countries, and their governments, as ones that support and condone abuses, then we should apply our standards equally to all nations. But, of course, we cannot go to war with all governments at once, based on the idea that all countries commit abuses. But we should decide which countries are the worst, and start thinking about how ready we are to wage war against them.

     If a country is worth going to war with, then we should cease trading with it immediately – not restrict trade, not have highly regulated trade, not set up an intricate system of licenses and permits for trading – we should stop trade entirely. I say that, full well knowing that if we do not have trade with a country, then we are more likely to have war with it. But if it is decided that allowing trade with a certain country is only helping its government clamp-down control on its people, then we should declare civil liberties violations and human rights abuses as the reason for the war, seek formal congressional authorization of a declaration of war, and fight that war quickly and efficiently, finish it, and bring all troops and bases home.

     Additionally, if we are going to have war with a country because its government is harming its people, then we should make no distinction between an abusive government, and its cronies which are legally entitled to property and wealth under that regime. If the government is condoning those abuses, and the “private” firms receive any form of taxpayer funding, then the government is complicit in any workplace abuses occurring at government sponsored firms.

     The next section, concerning the future of Kurdistan and the relevance of Syria's location to the oil industry, is based on notes written on January 3^rd and 4^th, 2019.

     The areas in northeastern Syria and northern Iraq which were formerly held by I.S.I.S., are on or near areas predominantly occupied by Kurds. I suspect that the U.S. military desires to maintain the presence of Turkey, the U.S., and their N.A.T.O. partners. I believe that the U.S. military can achieve those objectives with or without its own presence there, through leaving the task to Turkey and others.

     It is possible that the U.S. has found a way to leave Syria and achieve its own objectives as it pertains to the future of the Kurdish people. It's even possible that the Trump Administration is planning to support an independent, autonomous Kurdish state, which the United States would co-opt, so as to maintain the illusion that the Kurdish people's interests are really being put first in that country (instead of the interests of Western actors who don't want a truly free Kurdistan and invite more Western influence and interference).

     Although I do support Kurdish autonomy and independence, I'm not certain that statehood would be best for the Kurds. Granted, in a world of nation-states, statehood is practically the only way they can get the world to take them seriously. But I believe that, given enough time, nearly any state will oppress (and even mass-murder) a certain percent of its own people, and therefore, the world does not need another state.

     It is a consolation to me that the Kurdish state would likely be federated and decentralized, as Kurdish-majority regions in Syria and Iraq tend to be. Decentralization at least helps to diminish and diffuse the risks associated with centralizing power too much. But a Kurdish government oppressing its own people too much is not my only concern.

     I am also worried about the hubris of the American government, in thinking that it can help bring peace to the Middle East; after all the damage it has caused, and after even conservative hero Ronald Reagan admitted that we have continued to underestimate the complexity and irrationality of Middle East geopolitics.

     Western media tell us that the British and French government simply “messed up”, and “didn't care” where they drew the national boundaries that resulted in the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the modern-day borders. As a matter of fact, those boundaries were delineated deliberately by the British government, as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy. The idea was to keep tribes of different languages, different sects of Islam, and different religions, all fighting against each other, instead of banding together against their common enemy, the British imperial invaders. That the location and diversity of peoples in the Middle East were ignored in that process, was intentional, not accidental. And not just including the Kurdish people, but especially the Kurdish people, who were (and are) scattered across four nations as a result of that agreement.

     Even if America can have a seat at the negotiation table (with Kurdish, Turkish, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian leaders), it probably shouldn't, because American leaders would just tout their own role in resolving the problem so much, that it irks the other countries that have to make major concessions just to come to the table. Considering the American track record in the Middle East, it would not only be pointless to have America at the negotiating table, it would make the road to Middle East peace and Kurdish autonomy longer and bumpier.

     Another reason that the prospect of Kurdish autonomy is worrisome, is that former Vice President Joe Biden might try to take advantage of the issue in order to jump-start a likely run for president in 2020. I believe that Biden might try to portray himself as a longtime supporter of Kurdish independence, since he has been promoting the idea of partitioning Iraq into three areas (one mostly Sunni, one mostly Shi'ite, and the other Kurdish).

     While a Biden presidency could very well result in a rapid acceleration of a project to achieve Kurdish independence, there is no guarantee that that project would not deteriorate into an overly centralized, excessively Western-influenced country that is full of American military bases. Additionally, Biden has a sexual harassment scandal brewing, which, if he is the Democratic nominee, Donald Trump is sure to bring up during the debates. If that happens, it will not end well for Biden, and Trump will easily win a second term. I want to prevent that, but not at the cost of allowing Joe Biden to run the country. I would vote for someone else, or not vote at all.

     I would like to note that, in addition to promoting Israel's interests in Syria, another major reason for U.S. presence in Syria is the relevance of Syria's location to the interests of the oil industry.

     Syria has very little oil – and, at that, only on its outskirts – but the fact that it is situated between the Mediterranean sea to the West, and oil-rich Iraq and Iran to the East, makes it a very important area of geopolitical and economic strategic interest.

     The U.S. and its allies want to build a new oil pipeline - the proposed Qatar-Turkey pipeline - across parts of northern and eastern Syria. The proposed pipeline supported by the Russians and Iranians – the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline – would run the pipeline through only the Western part of Syria, near the Mediterranean Sea.

     Both proposed pipelines would brush the southern edges of Kurdish-majority territory. As far as I.S.I.S. goes, the Western-backed pipeline would cut across territories formerly controlled by I.S.I.S., while the Eastern-backed pipeline would not.

     It's hard to tell which pipeline would result in more havoc, environmental damage, or interference in the everyday lives of the Syrian people, or the Kurdish people for that matter. For all we know, Syria could feel worried about interference from both East and West, and favor neither pipeline. Stuck between Iraq and a wet place (the Mediterranean and the Western oil interests), if you will.

     That's why I have decided not to draw any conclusions on foreign policy from these facts relevant to oil. I merely wish to point these facts out, so that anyone wishing to develop their own opinion on the relevance of oil to the Syrian and Kurdish conflicts, and to U.S. involvement in the region, may do so.

     Another cause for my concern about whether our leaders' claims that we are leaving Syria are genuine - and that the exit is going according to plan, and that what we think is happening is really what's happening - came up just the other day.

     On January 6^th, 2019, National Security Adviser John Bolton said that, while we will be leaving northern Syria, our exit from Syria does not have a timetable for withdrawal of ground forces. He also said that the U.S. will not leave until Turkey's government guarantees the safety of U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters who helped defeat I.S.I.S..

     It has also been reported that Bolton reassured Israeli leaders that the U.S. will continue to help protect Israel from Iran after the U.S. withdraws troops from Syria.

     It's possible that a complete U.S. withdrawal from Syria might be delayed, or made only a partial withdrawal, due to Israel's influence. Although the Israeli narrative and Netanyahu's reputation have weakened significantly in recent months, the State of Israel will remain America's #1 ally in the region for the foreseeable future, barring a radical change in either U.S. foreign policy or Israeli leadership (or both).

     I would like to see the U.S. have the same policy towards Israel, Syria, Kurdistan, and all the other countries of the world alike: the U.S. military should withdraw all troops and dismantle all bases in all other countries, and whether the lack of U.S. presence in a country causes its government to grow weaker or stronger, more independent or less, it should be none of our business.

     Regimes in the Middle East will come and go, they don't need Western arms dealers arming them to the teeth – publicly nor privately – to make them look guilty by association, and look tyrannical because they have the means to attack others (whether they do or not).

     I won't call it unfair to argue that the U.S. should at least stay in Syria, or wherever else, long enough to fix the damage it has done over the decades. But what are the chances of that happening, really? Like I said before, it would require a radical change in U.S. policy.

     Still, though, I would rather have the U.S. simply stop interfering in other countries' internal conflicts, instead of sit around waiting for the American government to suddenly be run by honest people with decent, respectable, and realistic goals.

Written on December 21^st and 23^rd, 2018, and January 3^rd, 4^th, and 7^th, 2019

Originally Published on January 7^th, 2019