Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Sixty-Seven Topics in Esoteric and Hermetic Spiritual Thought

1. Secret Societies (esp. Freemasonry and the Bavarian Illuminati, and their roles in the founding of the United States)

2. Bohemian Grove and the Cremation of Care ceremony

3. Skull and Bones (secret society at Yale)

4. The Twelve Apostles as Symbols for the Zodiac, and Christian Sun Worship (esp. as explained by Thomas Paine); and also the twelve cranial nerves as symbols for the twelve apostles (esp. as explained by Santos Bonacci)
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Gn-_7z82k

5. Pagan Origins of Christmas and Easter

6. Caesar and Venus Worship

7. Luciferianism (incl. Lucifer vs. Satan, Lucifer vs. Jesus, and Iblis in Islam)

8. The Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.)

9. Lost Gospels, Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha
     (for more information on #9 and #10, see the following link:
      http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/03/sixty-three-scriptural-texts-not.html

10. The Books of Enoch (I, II, and III), Angelology, and the Nephilim

11. The Annunaki

12. Ezekiel, Ezekiel's Description of G-d's Chariot, and Merkabah Mysticism

13. The Last Scion (and relationship to the Divine Right of Kings and the idea of a Holy Empire)

14. The Rosicrucians (incl. the A.M.O.R.C.)

15. "Royal Blood, Holy Grail" & "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"

16. Alchemy and Christian Rosenkreutz

17. The Planets as Symbols for Elements (esp. Mercury)

18. The Music of the Spheres

19. Fertility Cults and Nature Religions

20. Ancestor Worship, Santeria, and "Saint Worship"

21. Pan, Pantheism, Animism, and Panentheism

22. Entheogens (incl. Genesis 1:29)

23. Sex Magick

24. Krampus and Black Peter

25. Alistair Crowley and Thelema

26. Geomancy

27. Life Energy (incl. Chi and Orgone Energy)

28. Planet and Star Worship

29. Saturn, Satan, and Set Worship (incl. the Hexagon on Saturn)

30. The Devil as the "Lord of the Flies" (Ba'al and Pazuzu)

31. Books of the Dead (incl. Egyptian, Tibetan, Necronomicon)

32. Necromancy

33. The Spiritual Meaning of the Number 6 and the Star of David (or "Israel star") (including "Star Numbers")
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NuOPH0qJc&fbclid=IwAR17yebpWOupqpbiNhb7AzpYH-oLFFmJz3JTT06-Fw4rBxgfFJCsyU3rpN4

34. The Star of David as a sum of its components (i.e., the Chevron and Chalice, and the letters of the Aleph-Bet)

35. The religious symbolism of the Black Cube (which has to do with Saturn worship)

36. The Qa'Ba (or Ka'ba; in Mecca, Saudi Arabia; Muslims circumambulate around it in mimicry of the rings of Saturn)

37. Tefillin (black boxes containing Jewish prayer scrolls, worn by some Jews during prayer)

38. The Kabbalah (and the Babylonian Talmud)

40. Theosis and Christosis

41. Christian Cabalism, and Coptic and Gnostic Christian Thought

42. Sacred Geometry (incl. the Golden Ratio / Golden Mean)

43. The occurrence of the number 29 in the mathematics of physics and planetary relationships, including:
     - the latitude of the Great Pyramid of Giza, expressed in degrees;
     - the speed of light, expressed in meters per second squared;
     - the number of Earth days in a lunar month; and
     - the length of the Saturnian year, expressed in Earth years. And also:
     - the number of times the phrase "Lamb of God" is mentioned in the Book of Revelation.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aVeV0YbAcA

44. Greek Isopsephy, Pythagorean Numerology, and Chaldean Numerology

45. Gematria (incl.:
     - Hebrew Gematria / Alephbet;
     - the "English Simple Gematria" [and the relationship of this phrase to the number 74];
     - Greek "gematria" / Greek isopsephy / Pythagorean numerology;
     - Masonic numerology)

46. The Number 666 (and its relevance to the book of Revelation, and also the 66.6-degree tilt of the Earth from spinning on its side)

47. The Number 23 (the "Chaos Number"; incl. Eris, Discordianism, and the Principia Discordia)

48. Chaos Magick (incl. sigil magick, scrying, casting lots, etc.)

49. The Sefirot

50. Trees of Life (incl. the Sefer Yetzirah in Judaism, and Yggdrasil in Norse religion)

51. Hermes, Hermeticism, the Corpus Hermeticum, and the prisca theologica

52. "Corpus Mysticum"

53. Avatars and Emanations (incl. of the Buddha. Also, the Holy Spirit and how it pertains to the meaning of the root "phan" in "hierophant", "phantom", and "epiphany")

54. The Theotokos

55. Tzevakot (the full meaning of the many names of G-d; and also, its gematric value, 1165, which is 233 [the gematric value of the Tree of Life] plus 972 [the gematric value of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil])

56. Theosophy (see also: Madame Helena Blavatsky, and Rudolf Steiner)

57. The Dead Sea Scrolls (incl. The Thunder, Perfect Mind, The Gospel of Truth, and the Gospel of Philip)

58. The Torah Codes / Hebrew Codes (incl. Equidistant Letter Sequences [E.L.S.s] and the use of Jewish cryptanalysts to help the Allies win WWII)

59. Oracles (including the Tarot, the Oracle at Delphi, Elsie Wheeler's Sabian Symbols, and the Ouija board)

60. Meaning of Abracadabra, esp. in ancient languages (see also: meaning and origin of the phrase "Avada Kedavra" in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter)

61. The Eye of Horus (and the Pineal Gland ["Third Eye"])

62. Moloch, Melek Taus, the Yazidi religion, and the Spiritual Symbolism of Peacock Feathers (esp. the Eye of the Peacock Feather)

63. The Malocchio, the Cuckold, and the Winged Phallus

64. Axis Mundi (and the Foundation Stone / Pierced Stone in the Dome of the Rock, in Jerusalem; see also "T&O maps" which had Jerusalem at the center of a circular world)

65. The Number 33 (years in Jesus's life, degrees in Masonry, and vertebra in the human spine)

66. Jacob's Ladder (and its relationship to Axis Mundi, and symbolism as it pertains to human anatomy)

67. Flat Earth Theory (esp. as defended in the context of Biblical texts supporting Flat Earth Theory), and also Hollow Earth Cosmogony (incl. its endorsement by the Nazis). (Esp. see Santos Bonacci's explanation of torus, hyperbole, and Hyperborea; and the relationship of the torus to electromagnetism, Biblical symbolism, and Jacob's Ladder).
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvud5oVM2XA&pbjreload=10









Compiled in 2018
Originally Published on March 20th, 2019
Edited and Expanded on March 21st, 22nd, 26th, and 27th, and April 18th, 2019
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Barack Obama, the Universal Sycophant

Written on December 16th, 2011



   Barack Obama is a sycophant on the behalf of all the peoples of the world.

   He backs interventionist land wars in the Middle East so that the West can get their oil before it reaches the ports where China can buy it up, while his father undermined Sino-Soviet influence in Africa as a C.I.A. "goat-herder". Yet Obama (as well as Huntsman) appears to be soft on China, having welcomed Jintao grandly, and copying China by manipulating currency (choosing inflation rather than deflation), oligopolistic nationalized sovietization, and arming a handful of American rivals in the Middle East.

   Obama supported funding Mubarak of Egypt and Qadhafi of Libya, while committing troops to assist al-Qaeda's toppling of Qadhafi. He called for reaching out to leaders of countries whom we have isolated, but he has not yet spoken with Ahmadinejad of Iran. He refused to destroy the drone which Iran captured because he felt that such an action could be construed as an act of war, yet it seems likely that he will use the capture of the drone as one of many pretexts for invading Iran.

   Obama made a speech in Cairo ingratiating himself to the Muslim world, while standing idly by when Egypt's Mubarak used Israeli-made tear-gas canisters to disperse protesters, and while Egypt and Israel continued to partner in order to isolate Gaza. He has been derided as the most anti-Israel president we've ever had, and yet he has not taken a stance opposing that country's dependence on our foreign aid money ($3 B a year) in favor of a fiscal independence which Netanyahu stated he would prefer. While repeatedly described as a secret Muslim and the like, Obama refuses to take a stance supporting Palestinian U.N. membership.

   And so, Obama remains the pro-China, anti-China, pro-Muslim, anti-Muslim, pro-Palestinian, anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-al-Qaeda, anti-al-Qaeda president.

   He is a symbol of, and an example to and for, every politician who has ever said whatever they felt was necessary to take and maintain power.



For more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/foreign-occupation-and-declaration-of.html

For more entries on Judaism, the State of Israel, and the Israeli-Arab conflict, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/us-withdrawal-from-united-nations.html

For more entries on high-profile corruption and conspiracy theories, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Summary of Webster Tarpley's Libya Analysis

Written on March 30th, 2011
Edited in April 2014



   This is what I gather is going on in Libya and thereabouts, based on what Webster Tarpley has to say about the matter:

   The C.I.A., MI-6 (along with British Special Air Services), al-Qaeda (a C.I.A. / MI-6 / Mossad / Saudi / Pakistani intel creation), and other mercenaries have been staging coups throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

   The belligerents consist of the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, the United Nations, N.A.T.O., and the League of Arab Nations.

   The rebels which the Western forces are backing consist of C.I.A. / al-Qaeda brigades out of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and possibly some originating from Libya itself.

   The Western powers are encouraging the civilian populations of those Arab countries to demonstrate against their leaders, while making it appear as though the Western powers are merely co-opting the revolts in order to oust those dictators.

   The Western powers’ aim is to stop Arab dictators from nationalizing their oil industries and giving oil profits to their people, and to instead direct that oil to the West.

   The Western powers’ plan to accomplish this goal is to install pro-Western puppet regimes wherever possible – be it in segments of the countries or in the entirety of the countries – which will be less hostile to Western interests.

   They desire to balkanize the subject countries in order to make it easier for Western and imperialist interests to control the flow of oil.

   So basically, the idea that the U.S. is co-opting the revolts is a red herring. The U.S. and Britain are actually behind the revolts, and it's the demonstrations - and not the coups - which are being staged.


For more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html

For more entries on Judaism, the State of Israel, and the Israeli-Arab conflict, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Criticism of Glenn Beck's Libya Coverage

Written on March 24th, 2011
Edited in April 2014



   On March 24th, 2011, Glenn Beck did a show about Libya, Israel, and oil. 


   For those who would rather not watch the videos, the main thrust of the episode was:

   1. Cass Sunstein (who holds a position which, for the sake of brevity, can be dubbed the "Regulation Czar") wants to limit American oil drilling in order to make the U.S. more dependent on Middle Eastern oil sources, helping justify intervention in Libya.

   2. George Soros, the nation of Turkey, and Cass Sunstein's wife (Obama foreign policy adviser and genocide scholar Samantha Power) want to compel the United Nations to invade Israel in order to stop its genocide against the Palestinians.

   The following is my criticism of the ideas presented in that episode.
  
   I disagree with Beck's claim that Egypt’s Mubarak is “pro-Israel”; I think Mubarak is only pro-Israel to the extent to which America paid him to pretend that the Egyptian people don’t desire that the State of Israel disappear. Beck also failed to mention that Mubarak’s Egypt and Netanyahu’s Israel have colluded to cut the Gaza Strip off from the rest of the world. Beck appears to have no interest in expressing concern for the welfare of the Gazan people, and does not seem to want to take the time to point out that not all Muslim peoples share the same political or religious ideology.

   Even though Beck admits that George Soros doesn’t actually like Qadhafi, I think Beck is trying to make connections between Islamosocialism and Western democratic socialism where they don’t necessarily exist. He has been repeating for at least several weeks that they are uniting against Israel and capitalism, and to undermine stability.

   First off, socialism and opposition to Israel do not always go hand-in-hand. In fact, I’ve shown that - in my piece "A Jewish and Democratic State" (http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/jewish-and-democratic-state.html) - Zionism itself, the establishment of the State of Israel, and the subsequent half-century of Israeli policy, were profoundly influenced by the socialism of Theodor Herzl and David ben-Gurion, as well as by Leninism, Trotskyism, and, to a lesser extent, Stalinism. This is not to ignore, however, the role which capitalism played in Israel’s development; for example, Jabotinsky, Weizmann, and Netanyahu are examples of Zionist figures whom have not completely opposed right-wing economics.

   But I would be shocked if any American Democrat turned out to be an anti-Zionist, rather than simply, at worst, a harsh critic of Israeli policy. I would also be surprised if any Democrat, even one who describes himself as a socialist, actually technically qualified as a Marxist or even as a person who completely opposes free-market capitalism.

   I feel like Beck is trying to characterize all Muslims as socialist, anti-Israel, and pro-Caliphate. I’m not claiming that Beck explicitly said that, but I feel like he is trying to imply it.

   First of all, not all Middle Eastern regimes oppose capitalism; Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the U.A.E. come to mind. Second, not all Muslims are anti-Israel, such as the Muslims who are members of the Israeli parliament. Third, not all Muslims are pro-Caliphate; Qadhafi is a Muslim (albeit not a traditional Muslim by any stretch of the imagination), and as far as I know, he has never expressed interest in bringing about a Caliphate. Qadhafi claims that supporters of al-Qaeda and bin Laden are among his opponents, and they would be more likely to want to bring about a Caliphate than would Qadhafi, whom has expressed interest in being the leader of an African Union.

   I resent that Beck called a group of Palestinians who murdered an Israeli family “terrorists”. They did not blow themselves up in a crowded public Israeli area, nor did they launch missiles towards Israelis. Thus, they are murderers, not “terrorists”. I also resent Beck’s characterization that Samantha Power (whose last name he didn’t even get right once) desires that the U.N. protect Palestinians “against Israel”, rather than “from Israel”. Beck also failed to mention that Cass Sunstein himself is Jewish.

   Beck rejected the idea that Israel’s policy against the Palestinians has been one of ethnic cleansing which could lead to a holocaust, but throughout the history of Israel, the rate of Arab-to-Jew deaths has been about 2 1/2 - to - 1. In the most recent major conflict, the strike on Gaza in early 2009, the ratio was at least 100-to-1. Furthermore, there is rampant housing discrimination against Muslims in Jerusalem, the West Bank has become an archipelago of communities isolated from one another and from natural resources, and the Gaza Strip has been repeatedly referred to as a concentration camp by scholars worldwide.

   If what has been slowly happening in Israel throughout the last 65 years can be rightfully labeled “ethnic cleansing”, this “atrocity” is currently nowhere near as deadly as it has been at any time throughout the last two years. I don’t think Turkey has enough international clout to get the U.N. to invade Israel, and I don’t think an America, whether run by Democrats or Republicans, would ever consent to, or participate in, a U.N. “invasion” of Israel in order to stop this “genocide”.

   Additionally, Beck said that Turkey has been arming Gaza, which I wouldn't doubt is true, but he did not mention the role which Turkey has played in negotiating a limited truce between Gazans and Israelis. Admittedly, that happened just today, but I would be surprised if Beck mentions it in his shows next week, because it doesn’t support his argument.


For more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/foreign-occupation-and-declaration-of.html




For more entries on Judaism, the State of Israel, and the Israeli-Arab conflict, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 25, 2011

Middle East Foreign Policy

 


I would not have voted to authorize the “wars” in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. I was opposed to all three military interventions from the start, although, in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, I cannot say that at such a young age I was aware of precisely why our reasons for doing so were either unjust or illegal.



Legality of War

The difference between a war and a police action is that in a war, the armed forces of at least two sovereign states are committing state-sanctioned violence against one another. Congress has not formally declared war since Pearl Harbor.

According to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, in response to a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” the president has the power to act unilaterally in committing armed forces to military action, but must notify Congress within forty-eight hours. The resolution also stipulates that, unless Congress authorizes the use of military force or declares war within sixty days of committing armed forces, armed forces may not remain after sixty days, and the chief executive has an additional thirty days to disengage.

However, the War Powers Resolution only applies to national emergencies created by attacks upon the United States. The sovereign governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya did not attack the United States; neither the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hussein’s Ba’ath Party regime in Iraq, nor Gadhafi’s regime in Libya purposely attacked the United States or its territories or possessions, at least not in a completely overt manner that was not in response to some unjust action committed by the United States. I will explain this one country at a time.

Being that no direct attack on the military or land of the United States occurred in the cases of either of these three countries, former president George W. Bush and President Barack Obama acted – or are acting – in manners that were – or are – unconstitutional, as well as in violation of the War Powers Resolution, when they ordered attacks against those three countries. Therefore, I believe that impeachment of either or both of these presidents would have been – or would be – appropriate, legal, constitutional, and within the jurisdiction of Congress.



Libya

 In the case of Libya, it can rightfully be argued that Colonel Muammar Gadhafi has caused the deaths of Americans, as Gadhafi’s former justice minister claimed about a month ago that Gadhafi personally ordered the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed nearly 270 people, two-thirds of them Americans. Admittedly, that happened nearly twenty-five years ago, so President Reagan was most likely unaware that Gadhafi may have been behind the bombing, even though Gadhafi had possibly sponsored a hijacking in Pakistan two years earlier.

Nevertheless, I do not believe the airplane which was allegedly bombed on Gadhafi’s orders in 1988 qualified as a possession of the United States – as it was a commercial plane heading from Germany to England to the U.S., as opposed to U.S. military aircraft – and so, I do not believe the War Powers Resolution applies in any case in which a U.S. president – past, present, or future – would be justified in claiming that action against Libya – even if the goal were to kill Gadhafi – qualifies as a response to an emergency situation resulting from an attack on the United States.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that an international panel could potentially seek to convict Colonel Gadhafi of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing in order to provide closure for the families of the victims. This may explain why so many U.S. officials are now claiming that our intention is not to kill Gadhafi. Our officials are also saying that the U.S. is not playing a leading role in the enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, but we are deploying the vast majority of the missiles, and permitting Britain to bomb Gadhafi’s headquarters.

The main reason which American officials are providing for enforcing the No-Fly Zone against Libya is that we would like to help the opposition against Gadhafi, which has been losing ground against him rapidly. Former Bush administration White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove even characterized the opposition as intent on establishing a democracy. That’s the major problem with our intervention in Libya; the U.S. is taking a side in a civil war in which we do not know whom we are supporting, nor what its goals are.

As in the case of Egypt, no doubt at least some of the Libyan opposition – or those sympathetic to it – support establishing democracy, but there is also a distinct possibility that many want to bring about a Sunni Islamic republic which would be more religiously orthodox than Gadhafi’s faction. It is also possible, as Gadhafi has repeatedly claimed, that some among the opposition have military and financial ties to – or at least sympathy with - Osama bin Laden and / or al-Qaeda.

The situation in Libya represents a sea change in American Middle East foreign policy. Usually the United States finds a Middle Eastern dictator it likes, then funds and arms him, and later invades his country. This time, Gadhafi started off as an enemy of the United States; and then, during the Bush administration, Libya was removed from the list of sponsors of state terrorism, and we began funding him; and now, rather than invading his country outright, we are “enabling” the enforcement of a No-Fly Zone against Libya.

It is difficult to judge what to do about Libya. With President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton repeatedly saying, “the time for Gadhafi to leave is now”, it is very puzzling why they desired to allocate taxpayer money to continue to fund him just a month ago and did not ask him to resign once the Obama administration transitioned into the White House.

While many argue that President Obama should have asked for congressional approval for the U.S. role in enforcing of the No-Fly Zone before he went to the headquarters of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the League of Arab States, it appears that, since Libya has not attacked us, congressional approval does not even apply to this situation. That would mean that President Obama’s actions are clearly illegal and unconstitutional, and he should be impeached whether congress votes to “authorize” the intervention by late May or not.

If we’re agreed that Gadhafi and his supporters are enemies of the United States – even though they have not attacked its citizens in over twenty years – and if we’re also agreed that we should take Gadhafi at his word that some of those armed Libyans who are trying to oust him are in fact al-Qaeda - or people who have sympathy with al-Qaeda – then I have no problem letting Gadhafi and his heavily-armed opposition destroy each other, and allowing the U.S. stand by while a coalition of European states foolishly take sides, to their own potential future diplomatic and military detriment. Only if any of those European states were directly attacked by Libya in the future would it be remotely appropriate that the U.S. should seek international authorization to defend the victims against Libya, in accordance with our N.A.T.O. obligation to assist them.



Iraq

In the case of Iraq, to speak to the issue of whether Hussein’s Iraq ever attacked the United States, I believe the United States had a desire to provoke Iraq into military action in order to justify armed conflict. During the Clinton administration, the U.S. Air Force would intentionally occupy Iraqi air space, and some American military officials hoped Iraq would shoot one of the planes down, which would be presented in the media as an attack, obscuring the fact that we had no reason to occupy their air space to begin with. Also, during the Clinton administration, the U.S. sent hundreds of C.I.A. agents to meet with Saddam Hussein, but they were kidnapped and forced to choose between their own deaths and the deaths of their families. All were murdered by Iraqis. There was even a failed coup against Hussein in 1996 in which the C.I.A. was involved. What all this means is that Iraq did kill Americans, but that violence was provoked, and the military operation which could be characterized as retaliation for those events was not timely in the least.

I believe the U.S. should pull its armed forces out of Iraq as quickly as that task can be safely performed. I also believe we should not leave any permanent military bases there. But, being that the role which the U.S. played in the ‘liberation’ of Iraq can never be undone, the U.S. should continue to play an important diplomatic role in Iraq’s affairs.

I think the U.S. should engage the Iraqis – as well as the governments of Syria, Turkey, Armenia, and Iran – to commence a dialogue that could result in those countries putting into place legal mechanisms whereby the Kurdish minorities in each of them may eventually hold a referendum which would allow them to peacefully declare and establish an independent Kurdish state. I think this would help to fan the flame of ethnic tension in Northern Iraq.


To further the goal of decreased ethnic tension, I also desire that the U.S. – without the use of coercion or threats – encourage the new Iraqi government to adopt a decentralizationist model for their government, affording local communities as much self-governance as is reasonable, in order to lessen the likelihood that a high-stakes federalist paradigm could undermine Sunni confidence in and fidelity to the government, which now affords more rights to Shi’ites than did the Hussein regime.



Afghanistan

In the case of Afghanistan, a little background is required. The Taliban was formed in the mid-1990s as a split off of the more opium-tolerant Mujahideen, which the C.I.A. trained, armed, and funded against the Soviets during the Reagan administration. I don’t believe we should engage in proxy wars or strengthen groups of warriors against sovereign governments, because there can be dire consequences. We should certainly never do it again, and we should also be careful when we fund and arm sovereign nations and help train their soldiers.

Afghanistan’s opium makes up nearly half of the worldwide opium trade, and there are even rumors that Osama bin Laden himself earns money off of the drug trade, in addition to his family’s oil wealth. I believe that the U.S. runs the risk of further and more drawn-out involvement in Afghanistan, now that it has been discovered that the country has wealth in mineral and oil deposits.

I do not desire that the U.S. continue to express solidarity with the CIA-backed Afghanistani President Hamid Karzai, whose brother has been accused of not only being paid by the CIA, but also of being involved in the drug trade. The U.S. claims it invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban had contact with Osama bin Laden and refused to turn him over, but I believe one important reason for the invasion was that the Taliban was cracking down on the production of opium in the several years prior to 9/11. However, this would seem to be contradicted by rumors that the opium trade is a major source of funding for the Taliban.

Some of President Obama’s critics are calling the conflict in Afghanistan “Obama’s war of choice”, being that Obama Democrats view that conflict as more popular and legitimate than the conflict in Iraq. As in the case of Iraq, I desire neither that the president commit any more troops to Afghanistan, nor that the U.S. leave any permanent military bases there, and I would vote to pull U.S. armed forces out of Afghanistan as quickly as that task can be safely performed. We should also cease Predator-drone strikes on Pakistani targets, and leave those tasks up to the relatively new government of Pakistan which has replaced that country’s military dictatorship.



General Middle East Policy

Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iraq are among the top 15 national producers of oil, and Libya and Afghanistan produce some oil as well. In the lead-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was repeated that oil wealth would help pay for the costs of military intervention. Bill Clinton’s air strikes on Baghdad were, in part, retaliations for Saddam Hussein’s desire to sell oil to the U.S. through Europe – rather than directly to us – which cost the U.S. money due to rates of currency exchange.

I don’t believe the U.S. should continue this policy of engaging in trade wars over commodities that are highly valuable, and thus, prone to causing conflicts. The U.S. obviously still has some desire to both protect its own economic interests, as well as contain international socialism, whether it be Marxist-Stalinist or Islamic-communitarian in character. I believe that neither of these goals can be achieved through colluding with the governments of foreign nations to intervene in the economy without causing the occasional international military conflict.

 If the U.S. desires to keep practicing Wilsonianism – that is, ‘making the world safe for democracy’ – while continuing to look after its own economic interests, as well as undermining regimes which are destructive to human liberty; trade wars, military strikes, regime-change, and nation-building are not the way to go; nor is training, arming, and funding dangerous groups of warriors within those countries.

We should replace the “stick” approach with the “carrot’ approach”; that is, we should trade with businesses and people in foreign nations, so that they may learn to appreciate the economic liberty which our economic policy affords them, leading them to identify with us ideologically against the regimes which plunder their wealth through taxes.

That way, they may reap the benefits of the free market, and allocate their wealth in whatever way they might. If they choose to use that wealth to destroy their oppressors, so be it; the United States has no place intervening and taking sides in civil wars. Once the free market is enabled, and communal autonomy is secured; legitimate, localistic participatory democracies will have the opportunity to flourish in order to balance the interests of the earners of wealth with the egalitarian interests of the community without the specter of needless monolithic, bureaucratic, federalistic, centralizationist, sovereign, nation-state government incursion into their affairs.



Iran and Israel

Another part of the question of Iraq and Afghanistan is Iran. I believe that, in truth, the United States has practically no legitimate reason to be militarily involved in Afghanistan, that our establishment of military bases there is primarily intended to serve as a launching pad – as a compliment to Iraq – for a future invasion of Iran, and that part of the reason the U.S. is in Iraq is to protect Israel from Iran, and to direct Iraqi oil to Israel.

 Israel is the other missing piece of Middle East foreign policy. Osama bin Laden, in his alleged ‘admission’ to complicity in the September 11th attacks, stated that the attacks occurred because the U.S. has military bases on the Arabian Peninsula, and because it supports the State of Israel. I believe that these two reasons are among the most important causes of the recent inflammation of Muslim antipathy towards the United States.

 In accordance with what was, until about a century ago, the law of the Ottoman Empire, as well as what is the law of the Old Testament, Jewish and Muslim communities are to be as autonomous as possible, with no modern, sovereign, nationalistic, statist entities subverting the law of G-d to the authority of mankind. Furthermore, there is not to be sovereign government among the Jews until the rabbinic court of religious law called the Sanhedrin has been fully established, and the Jewish Messiah has arrived and been identified.

 I believe there is only one hope to cooling tensions between the United States and the Islamic and Jewish international communities, and that a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine is not that hope. That’s why, as a condition of any and all negotiations between the U.S. and Israel, I would vote that the U.S. require the State of Israel to set a deadline for its own peaceable de-establishment. I think this is the only way that members of the three major Abrahamic faiths have a chance to live in peace with one another in observance of the laws of their own religions.




For more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/foreign-occupation-and-declaration-of.html

For more entries on Judaism, the State of Israel, and the Israeli-Arab conflict, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...