News & Analysis
Is the Anglosphere Driving Militant Islam?
Assassination underscores religious intolerance in Pakistan ... News of the assassination came to Rev. Majed El Shafie at 3 a.m. Wednesday morning in Toronto. That was when Peter Bhatti, a fellow Christian living in Canada, called to say that his brother, Shahbaz Bhatti, had been killed in Islamabad. Peter Bhatti was "brokenhearted," Mr. El Shafie recalled in an interview. "He called me to get the rest of his family to Canada from Pakistan. He was like, ‘I beg you, just help me get them out of Pakistan.'" Shaken by the overseas death of his long-time friend, the clergyman added: "How much more blood until people wake up about freedom of religion in Pakistan?" – Globe and Mail
Dominant Social Theme: Why can't the East be more like the West?
Free-Market Analysis: The assassination of the Christian Minister for Minorities in Pakistan, Shahbaz Bhatti is a tragedy on a number of levels. The mainstream media has explained the tragedy rather well (see excerpt above) emphasizing the horrors or intolerance and Islamic fundamentalism. But in this article we want to examine the idea that the whole story has NOT been told and that institutionalized intolerance is often seeded and cultivated by the Anglosphere as part of a larger divide-and-conquer strategy. In Pakistan and generally throughout the Middle East we would argue that this is so.
There is no doubt the shooting of Bhatti is a shocking and tragic event. It was also a bold one. He was shot by masked gunmen in broad daylight, according to the Globe and Mail Report, after visiting his mother in Islamabad. "The assassination is yet another sign of Muslim-majority Pakistan's slide into fundamentalism and anarchy," the Globe and Mail observes, and indeed it is.
Of course, Bhatti was a target in Pakistan, which has grown increasingly intolerant of outside religions other than Islam (presumably Sunni Islam). And Bhatti may have made himself more of a target with what the Globe and Mail calls his (outspoken) contempt for Islamist extremism. "He openly campaigned against sharia law, and had spoken out against a 25-year-old blasphemy law that he felt singled out non-Muslims in Pakistan. Such pronouncements, he frequently acknowledged, made him a marked man. In fact, he prepared several videotaped messages to be broadcast in the event of his death." Here's some more from the article:
"The forces of violence, militant banned organizations – the Taliban and al-Qaeda – they want to impose their radical philosophy in Pakistan," he said in one. "I'm ready to die for a cause. ... I would prefer to die for my principles, and for the justice of my community, rather than to compromise on these threats." Canada's Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, was particularly affected by the death of Mr. Bhatti, whom he considered a friend. "I was struck by how resigned he was about his expected martyrdom," Mr. Kenney said in a statement. "He told me that he would not marry, because he did not want to leave a widow or orphans behind when that time came." ...
Mr. El Shafie, who hails from Egypt's persecuted Christian minority, had worked on several other projects with the Bhatti brothers over the years. (Peter Bhatti was en route to Pakistan Wednesday to mourn his brother.) "I knew Shahbaz for the last six years. We worked together in many, many ways. He was like a brother," Mr. El Shafie said. "He believed in what he was doing and he died for what he believed." ... Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban are apparently claiming responsibility for Mr. Bhatti's death.
What occurs to us however is that if one tracks the genesis of the current rising extremism, it begins to look less like a homegrown exercise and more like a program of deliberate Anglo-American power elite provocation. This conclusion can be reached if one accepts the generally held perspective that Saudi Arabia – an Anglo-America client state – has been in the business of exporting Wahhabi fundamentalism for a number of decades. It is Saudi Arabia in particular that has helped fund various fundamentalist Sunni movements including the Madrassas in Pakistan and the Al Shabob regime change in Somalia.
It is well known by now that the CIA assisted in shaping the initial presence of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan to oppose the Russians. The Taliban, radicalized Pashtun warriors, were in many cases educated in Saudi-Arabia funded Madrassas. Everywhere one looks there is considerable funding (via Saudi Arabia of course) that supports Islamic fundamentalism and extremism. Supposedly, the Saudis have spent close to US$90 billion prosletyzing for Wahhabism throughout the Islamic world in the past 20 years. it beggars common sense to believe however that if the US were disconcerted by this spending that the Saudis would continue it.
We have spent considerable time recently explaining how we believe the current Western-initiated wave of regime change sweeping the Middle East may replace "strong man rule" with Islamic republics. The idea, always, is to polarize religious ideologies in order to create tension between East and West. Anglosphere money power then exploits this via military actions and by imposing further authoritarian mechanisms on its own citizens.
In the era of the Internet there is perhaps considerably more awareness of this sort of manipulation than in past eras. Daily India for instance yesterday carried a remarkable speculation about the assassination entitled "RAW, MOSSAD or CIA could be behind Pak minister's assassination." The report was derived from a Pakistani publication, the Nation. The Daily India news brief summarized the Nation's perspective, reporting that a "foreign hand" could have furthered the assassination.
The report acknowledges that the assassination has been claimed by the Tehrik-e-Taliban-Pakistan, which has apparently been behind a string of terrorist attacks in the country. But it then points that "Links between foreign intelligence agencies like RAW, MOSSAD and CIA and militants have been suspected. RAW [Indian intel] is even known for having provided financial and military support to spread violence in Pakistan," it added.
What would be the justification for such attacks? According to Daily India, the Nation speculated that it was "pretty much apparent" that those who carried out the assassination "would have in mind the consequences for our image abroad and the anxiety it would create within the religious minorities."
The paper also apparently made the claim, according to "well-informed sources", that the Obama administration "deployed over 400 pro-India and pro-Israel CIA agents in Islamabad, Quetta, Peshawar, Lahore and Karachi, the country's biggest cities." It added that these individuals came from private security companies like LLC, Xe services or Blackwater and that leading Indian and Israeli tycoons have been "secretly and heavily funding such companies to carry out clandestine operations in the Middle East, Asia and Africa as per their interests."
This sort of paranoia – justified or not – is reinforced by current events, specifically the recent capture of a US diplomat, Raymond Davis, who shot and killed three Pakistani men and remains in a Pakistan jail. We reported on this recently in an article entitled "Unraveling of a Pakistan Scam" and quote part of a ZeroHedge.com article entitled "CIA Agent Caught Red-Handed Aiding Pakistani Terrorism?" The cut-line reads, "News that the American accused of killing two Pakistani men is a CIA contractor has intensified an already highly charged situation in Pakistan." You can see the article here:
http://www.thedailybell.com/1786/Unraveling-of-Pakistan-Scam.html
Fundamentalist zealotry, especially leading to murder, is always tragic. But what is even more tragic in our view is the inextricable involvement of the West in inciting these sorts of activities in furtherance of a divide and conquer strategy leading to further control of the developing world. Instead of helping these countries prosper, the Anglo-American power elite seems content to cultivate extremism as part of a larger program of destabilization and infiltration.
Conclusion: Whether such programs can continue to work in 21st century – when publications such as the Nation and Daily India speculate in real-time on these supposedly top secret machinations – is a question we regularly submit in these modest pages. This is perhaps the dilemma that the Anglo-American elite faces in the Internet era.
l Latest Daily Bell Articles
Feedback
 |
Posted by Abul-husayn on 03/08/11 03:20 AM
So did I. I'll try again ...
Evolution has given humanity dominion on this planet. We don't know how to handle it, we're still learning. It's a steep learning curve because it's intoxicating, and the more intoxicating the higher we get. And the only way to learn this is by doing it, and ... shall we say ... "mistakes have been made" that have made the learning curve even steeper. Mankind has suffered from that, and continues to suffer from that, and some will continue to suffer far beyond the foreseeable future because they prefer the mistakes that provide them with something they want.
Everything we see happening today is an instance of "learning by doing." The key word here is "see." There is much that we don't see and won't see, that is shaping the "learning by doing" lessons.
Four independent establishments of human dominion have been institutionalized and remain with us today. All other "supreme" dominions ~ national, church, tribal, or however styled or structured ~ are allowed by these four to exist. Three have suffered corruptions and become, in essence, "inhuman" dominions; the fourth, older than the pyramids, has destroyed any corruption it has been otherwise unable to control and contain. The fifth such domain is being established today, to complete the integrated structure of human dominion. All five will persist. They can be thought of as classrooms within which people learn by forming ~ constituting ~ "governments" and exercising dominion. "America" is not a classroom, it is an experiment, a laboratory exercise in human dominion. The so-called "New World Order" is an academic fantasy, a theory devised mainly to illustrate that "idealistic" theories of human dominion are inconsistent with human nature and will not work in practice.
Most "in attendance" are uninterested in the curriculum and would much prefer classmates ~ many of whom never learn ~ whose mistakes had an impact only on their own lives. And although there as been some progress made in climbing up the learning curve, graduation is still some considerable distance away.
"Recursive ratiocination" is thinking about the way one is thinking. Most people seriously do not know how to think, and public education and the entertainment media make it worse, not better. Irrational fictions promoted as "religion" interfere with the restoration of human nature, and make the "exercising dominion" learning curve slippery as well as steep.
Be all you can be: vote with your feet.
|
Posted by Lukester on 03/08/11 01:18 AM
That is the point where your thesis that a $300 or $400 per barrel petroleum price is artificially sustained by PE manipulation will become utterly threadbare.
One wonders then, when the petroleum price has been "magically lofted" by the PE at $400 a barrel for several years running and yet the Chinese with their trillions of foreign currency reserves have mysteriously remained unable to unearth where the PE have been "hiding" all those vast extra petroleum stores, whether you will finally, grudgingly, permit your curious thesis to be modified (read: scuttled entirely).
I am willing to bet, you will still be insisting it's a purely manipulated price after oil has been up that high for a half decade.
You are citing fluff, DB. Agree to stand your thesis down, after the oil price has been north of $250 for three years running. It is nonsense to claim that 4 billion people will be starved of their industrial revolutions while massive oil reserves "somewhere" have remained "hidden from world scrutiny" by vested moneyed interests.
Weak argument, especially from some of the most fervent proponents of "the invisible market's hand". It is an utter cop-out of a rhetorical argument.
Prevailing market price ****will tell the story****. Will you know how to climb down from an untenable assertion after four or five years of $200 oil? What about the market's verdict, that you revere in every other instance as infallibly asserting itself to establish true valuations?
Reply from The Daily Bell
Repeating something over and over again (the world is running out of oil) doesn't make it so. You obviously have a larger agenda, one that is ever-impervious to facts.
----
Click to view link
----
Jerri's Corner: OIL"you better be sitting down when you read this!!
About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, 'I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground? Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, 'more than all the Middle East put together. Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana .. check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska "s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $53 trillion.
'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.. says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years, reportsThe Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the "Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana , through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the "Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should " because it's from 2006!
U.S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World
Stansberry Report Online " 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States .
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy ... WHY?
----
Regarding China
1. All land is owned by the government
2. Governments are not efficient at doing anything
3. The Chinese government manipulates prices domestically so oil costs LESS than it should - a big disincentive to finding oil.
4. China has huge shale oil deposits if it chooses to exploit them.
There is probably plenty of oil in China. Just because the inefficient and lamentable ChiCom government and its state-affiliated oil companies cannot find it doesn't mean its not there. As usual in your zeal to promote fear-based scarcity memes you have neglected to peer beneath the surface. You are welcome to take your instruction from the mainstream media; we don't.
----
Did Exxon misplay its bet on China?
Click to view link
According to Wood Mackenzie, an oil and gas consulting company based in the United Kingdom, China looks like it will need only half as much additional liquefied natural gas in the decade beginning in 2020 as big energy companies -- among them Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A, news, msgs), BP (BP, news, msgs), Chevron (CVX, news, msgs) and, yes, Exxon Mobil -- had projected.
Projects such as Exxon Mobil's Qatargas Trains 4 and 5, RasGas and Al Khaleej Gas in Qatar, the South Hook LNG terminal in Wales and the Golden Pass LNG terminal in Texas, which made investment sense when it looked like China would import an additional 16 million tons of LNG annually in the coming decade, now face a scenario in which China would add only half as much to its annual imports.
That would hit all the international oil and gas companies hard, but it would hit Exxon Mobil especially strongly because the company has based its investing strategy on natural gas in general and liquefied natural gas in particular.
What's changed since, say, March, when Exxon Mobil announced it would increase capital spending 4% in 2010, to almost $28 billion, in a big bet on natural gas? And since its purchase of U.S. natural-gas producer XTO Energy for $28 billion?
Here's what: China is going to put new natural-gas-releasing technologies to work faster than previously thought.
|
Posted by Lukester on 03/08/11 12:07 AM
You respect the price at market as the final arbiter of market truths, non? Well, sit back and watch the price of petroleum go cartwheeling into the stratosphere in the next 3-5 years. Then explain your thesis of market equilibriums to your readers in 2015.
Reply from The Daily Bell
It is perfectly possible that the Anglosophere can manipulate the price of oil upward. But that is what it is. A manipulation. And in the long term market manipulations are most difficult to maintain. We would be very surprised if people will tolerate four hundred dollar oil. In the era of the Internet there is too much evidence of these manipulations. There would be a social explosion in our view and the entire scam would be in danger of unraveling. This is why the elite usually "goes slow."
|
Posted by Lukester on 03/07/11 11:36 PM
What? Yeesh. .
|
Posted by Lukester on 03/07/11 11:33 PM
Your comments would benefit by being unpacked into simple English sentences that are easily grasped and intelligible. Simple un-fancy terms convey simple, clear thoughts and would render such discussions much more easy to decode.
That means using plain, $0.10 cent words and sentences, rather than lots of $2.00 dollar words, lots of questionably intelligible semi or "proto-metaphysical" references and obscurely complex paragraphs.
Examples:
"So the factor noticed by Mr.Khalil in its trivial manifestation is, indeed, determinative. But those who have been leading humanity to its evolutionary niche as the species of organic creature dominant over creation are the locus of deterministic effect, while among the turbulences the effects will vary with the proportion of actors with varyingly increased facility in the use of those faculties".
I strain to unpack this paragraph into simple English which Joe Sixpack can understand. I'm Joe Sixpack and I don't get the foggiest idea what you chaps are on about.
I strain just as much to grasp what Mr. Khalil is going on about.
Perhaps you mix up two entirely different notions.
Concept # 1: The moral and ethical protest and sense of disgust and outrage (which we all share) that Western nations and mature-industrial economies generally, have abandoned all concern and pretense for ethical correctness, by propping up oil producing autocratic regimes (such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and Libya) for **decades** and their diplomats are now standing on a soapbox proclaiming to the world how distressed we all are at the lack of democracy which we suddenly acknowledge is prompting their political upheavals.
Hillary Clinton is indeed the pinnacle and supreme expression of this Western nation hypocrisy " she is the standard bearer for American blatant hypocrisy on these unfolding events. But that is merely a statement of the obvious!
Concept # 2: (completely unrelated inquiry and insights): that the world is staring down the prospect of $200 a barrel oil and the implosion of the fledgling economic recovery WORLDWIDE " due precisely to the outbreak of democratic stirrings in the ME.
The precarious balance between supply and demand for oil worldwide in 2011 is ALSO A HUGE STORY!
Further, and to complicate things into a real tangle, the automatic assumption that popular revolts for representative democracy are going to lead to some semblance of actual democracy are precariously optimistic " at least in any near term sense.
I am NOT saying these popular uprisings are not 100% justified and even long overdue, but they will produce some massive consequences worldwide in the cost of EVERYTHING and this mechanism will surge far beyond merely the money printing from Bernanke " which is all you people seem to see out there.
The very presence of the critically strategic petroleum in the region, and the vast geopolitical power which it bestows, makes it overwhelmingly likely that these "revolutions" will be co-opted to harness them into one larger political block or another. The chance that these revolutions result in some sort of populist, dangerous co-opting of the original democratic impulse is very high.
I reiterate my prior comments " this entire community's "skepticism" that petroleum supply or access is going to be a burning issue this decade, let alone any issue at all, is precisely what is causing a generalized myopia among commenters here, when it comes to grasping how colossally precarious the outbreak of regime changes in the Middle East will prove to be for the oil price subsequently paid by the rest of the world.
The error is to get an ethical insight (the ethical imperative after decades of stagnation, for national liberation movements) mixed up with a level headed, ideologically dispassionate review of what this will all ***do to the petroleum price*** " and through that to the prospects for world growth and any scrap of hope for world economic stabilization going forward.
$250 a barrel oil will plunge the world into a repeat of 2008, and not a single commenter here even mentions it, because you are all following the DB's narrow thesis (oil criticality in the 2010's is a myth) like minnows.
Or to put it in the simplest terms possible " it is PETROLEUM that is going to trigger WWIII, not the stupid and myopically ineffective machinations of the Power Elite. The power elite are petrified at what regime change is going to do to their oil supply, and anyone ignoring this will be a patsy to the massive unfolding events which have PETROLEUM at the core.
The Petroleum supply / demand growing crisis, and national liberation from tyranny with all it's emotional baggage of ethical urgency " are two entirely separate trends and separate insights, going forward.
Tangle them up together, and you obtain garbled, rationally unintelligible geopolitical reads about what will unfold " keep them separate for individual analysis, and obtain some clarity.
There is a good and focused discussion of the critical implications (for $250 barrel oil!) over at iTulip on thus topic. I despair of the discussions here, all loaded down with ideological baggage like a caravan groaning under the weight of immense unnecessary loads, which hinder cutting through all the noise to find the strategic energy implications for the world.
I am emphatically in favor of emancipation of all these peoples " i am particularly in favor of the emancipation of women " most promising in a SECULAR government thereafter " but will they actually get it?
And as a direct consequence of being enthusiastic for these national emancipations, consequently I am getting mentally ready for $250 oil in 2 years, and $400 oil in 5-7 years. And I am willing to bet that 95% of the "feedbackers" here will be caught dozing on this unfolding event.
Petroleum is just not on their radar screens, largely because the Daily Bell told them it was OK to ignore this "illusory" factor.
Right and wrong are another question entirely. The Petroleum availability relative to rising global demand will be the real Joker in the pack of cards " and it will tangle up and render the search for democracy in the region ***far more challenging***.
I Can't find a single poster here who seems to "get it" right now " but all will "get it" emphatically in just 2-3 more years.
Discussion on the implications for petroleum here:
Click to view link
What the heck are you all talking in metaphysical terms about? I can't make head or tails of your comments " come to think of it I could say that for a lot of the comments on these threads " all railing on about the supreme deity or ranting about freedom in response to every editorial.
Sounds more like a lot of bellowing, than coolly considered comments on the implications of unfolding current events.
This conversation is better informed, and IMO more astute:
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Repeating something over and over again (the world is running out of oil) doesn't make it so. You obviously have a larger agenda, one that is ever-impervious to facts.
----
Click to view link
----
Jerri's Corner: OIL"you better be sitting down when you read this!!
About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, 'I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground? Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, 'more than all the Middle East put together. Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana .. check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska "s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $53 trillion.
'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.. says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years, reportsThe Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the "Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana , through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the "Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should " because it's from 2006!
U.S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World
Stansberry Report Online " 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States .
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy ... WHY?
|
Posted by Abul-husayn on 03/07/11 08:00 PM
Translation: "I've noticed a seemingly insignificant detail with no apparent relation to the macrocosmic events we've been discussing that, when viewed in the proper perspective (mine), makes all previous discussion of these events a mere stumbling around in the dark. I would be happy to enlighten those lacking the necessary intellectual equipment to discern this major factor on their own."
It appears to me that what he's talking about is that factor that has made every adolescent imagine that he is wiser and more capable than his parents: increasing facility in the use of certain human faculties that lay dormant at an earlier stage of our evolutionary history. Increasing incidence of recursive ratiocination is, indeed, a factor, and may have an impact on the outcomes of the various turbulences in the sea of humanity.
However, what our erstwhile seer imagines to be a general or universal evolutionary leap, impacting events generally and universally, is not that. Evolution does not occur across an entire species, but by the fecundity of individuals whose DNA has successfully reprogrammed itself to meet an environmental threat encountered by those individuals. It does not occur evenly across a population, and will not have an impact evenly across the spectrum of political adjustments being made today.
What is missing in Mr. Khalil's analysis is the extrapolation of this evolutionary "individualism" into his analysis of history and social evolution. The human faculties material to current developments have not been dormant in the entire human population, and what we call "history" is largely a recounting of the social interactions of those individuals and groups of individuals who had developed facility in the use of those faculties in the time of their political ascendancy. In history, they were called "royalty," and administered the affairs of the other "noble classes," who in turn managed the affairs of the common people, usually with the assistance of the clergy of the various religions of their time. Although the terminology is no longer in general use, the noble classes are still extant, some called "honorable" or "eminence" or "judge" or "regent," but most no longer in public view. The lower noble classes, actually "noble" only at the moment of their initial formation, attract the ambitious and the corrupt who join their ranks through payment of "dues," leading to today's political adjustments being orchestrated by the royal class through the other higher noble classes.
So the factor noticed by Mr.Khalil in its trivial manifestation is, indeed, determinative. But those who have been leading humanity to its evolutionary niche as the species of organic creature dominant over creation are the locus of deterministic effect, while among the turbulences the effects will vary with the proportion of actors with varyingly increased facility in the use of those faculties.
Political administration is an applied science not amenable to purely academic mastery (i.e., a "Masters Degree in Political Science" is an oxymoron), and capacity for administrative faculty is not evenly distributed across the population, as "democracy" postulates.
It is possible that various populations have developed some acuity in discerning the true nobility that might appear among the candidates for offices intended to be used for benevolent dictatorship (e.g., "President," "Senator," "Prime Minister," etc.). However, the tendency of the American population to elect pretenders, who betray the public trust with their imperial or material ambitions, is not indicative of any such development.
It is easy to appear to be of noble character, and it is generally the case that "every man has his vices," some material to nobility, some not. But the Electoral College of the U.S. Constitution is the only political institution that can make representative democracy functional as intended ~ the people select someone bknown by them/b to be of noble character, who joins others in selecting someone bknown by them/b to be of noble character, to administer the common affairs of the society. Unfortunately, it, too, has been corrupted by partisan contention and personal ambition, and is not employed where it really would have effect, in selecting candidates for Senate or Congressional offices.
It does not seem likely to me that today's turbulences will lead to an effective "democracy" in the short term. They bmay/b produce what are effectively constitutional monarchies, as has been the case in America; but from what I have seen, there is an abundance of pretenders and a dearth of nobility actually available for resolution of the corruption of political administration in those places experiencing "extraordinary" change in search of equity. It's going to be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" in most places, with cosmetic changes in sovereign policy that do not address the underlying problem. People are too easily deceived, too trusting of people who portray themselves as white knights, and the thrones to be filled rule domains so broad that almost none of the electors have any opportunity to know the actual character of the candidates, but must choose on the basis of inappropriately superficial perceptions.
Ron Paul is a notable exception to this rule of thumb ~ his noble character is, uncuriously, known to those who elect him and manifest to others. Unfortunately, as a political player in today's climate, he is rather ineffectual, and his supporters outside his Congressional district are "activists" with their words and wallets but not sufficiently with their hands and feet. This may change, but ideological acuity is not the long suit of the average voter, and campaigning for Ron Paul's libertarian principles will not persuade the electorate who imight/i be persuaded by recognizable material accomplishments to their benefit and reliably manifested nobility of character.
Recursive ratiocination is not yet a generalized attribute of the human population of the planet.
|
Posted by Eddie Khalil on 03/07/11 09:48 AM
&/or hypotheses suggested by the following theses : that evolution and creationism are inextricably connected to an,admittedly uncorroborated,ongoing truth as to humanity's origins and originative-bio-imperative-directives-: that crucial factors which would clarify &/or prove&/or enhance comprehensibility of reasonable &/or 'heretical' theoreticals in art-science-theological discourse have been 'overlooked,unrecognised, [conveniently?]not taken into account as being relevant,possibly determining factorsin in a collective 'species' discourse which transcends certain counter-productive historical lines of national,racial,socio-political-financial sex-gender issues within this 'new','globalised','planetary','universalised' perspective-grid of contemporary millenial, transition-phasing world-views-
that one key to all present-time fields of inquiry must be a contemplation of the prime invention of mankind in recent times...the [portable&/or fixed] closed-circuit-life-support-system[mummification may have been the attempt to begin inventing the space-suit before applying it to maintenance of the living]...and that this invention may have been an 'evolutionising' 'dormant' gene-impulse,along with language[vocal and written],defining the very differences that make a difference[not knessetarily superiorising nor inferiorising] between the forms and functions of human organisms as compared with [comparable and/or incomparable ] aspects of all animal , plant , insect , avian , inorganic andextra-terrestrial phenomena hitherto observed , utilised , categorized and/or theorised about------
Reply from The Daily Bell
What?
|
Posted by Abul-husayn on 03/07/11 06:49 AM
1. American "energy policy" for a hundred years has been to drain the world's petroleum reserves BEFORE using our own. This is why the "environmentalist movement" has been allowed to succeed in preventing exploitation of America's oil deposits.
2. When revolution is patently inevitable, stage your own, supporting factions that will later become allies.
3. The actual "powers that be" ~ who are not "the anglosphere" but invisibly pulling the strings that control those "powers behind the throne" ~ are the architects of the change taking place in the Middle East. The plan for this was not formulated yesterday, but well over a century ago.
4. Those who have been exercising global dominion for over four thousand years know what they're doing and their plans will come to fruition as they always have, without surprises.
5. The outcome will surprise those who unwittingly carried out someone else's stratagems, as well as those who were shepherded into premature action.
6. Institutionalized establishments inevitably restrict the liberty of succeeding generations.
7. Trotsky's dream of "permanent revolution" will be realized, but not in any way he ever imagined.
8. Religious liberty, and with it universal liberty, will be the eventual result.
9. And the commonwealth of the nations will become the common wealth of all humanity.
But not in the next two weeks, it's not a mini-series, nor is The Hour a television sitcom.
 |
Posted by Wayne on 03/06/11 04:31 AM
"As to "Peak Oil", I don't know. But, this I do KNOW: It is in the interests of monopolists for us to BELIEVE that supplies are restricted and, to actually behave in a manner that restricts supply. This is a general truth, from the legal professions worst nightmare of having to decisively deal with criminals (insuring that crime does not pay), putting them out of a job (criminals would seriously consider the HIGH risks, as opposed to liberal handslaps, as their lawyers share in "proceeds of crime") to the grand protection racket of MIC actually creating and provoking conflict, so us stupid marks continue to pay them ever increasing tribute to "keep the peace".'
Thus it is has always been so!
Remember the 'Danegeld" scam, which had British peasants paying all that money to prevent what?
A Viking longboat from parking offshore.
The protection racket is the oldest profession, as the prostitutes probably had to pay for protection
|
Posted by Wayne on 03/06/11 04:09 AM
Click to view link
|
Posted by Wayne on 03/06/11 04:04 AM
"HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy ... WHY?"
I presume this is rhetorical
Surely you know that main support for the US Dollar comes from the buying of OPEC Crude in US Dollars
|
Posted by Bill Ross on 03/05/11 08:46 PM
Not sure if you want this to go through. I vote Lukester off the island, a disruptive, unreasonable troll. Publish from here on, if you wish...
"which vast armies of analysts in these 1 billion plus population governments have missed."
..ugh, like you mean like the "earth is flat" meme forcefully maintained by the RC church so people would be afraid of traveling too far from home and falling off the edge of the earth??? (Just so they don't learn too much and that there are other valid points of view). Keep 'em in the dark and eating crap.
Truth is NOT a matter of majority, or anyone's opinion. It is what is proven by observation of FACTS and relating them within the context of proven knowledge. We have NO FACTS that can be trusted regarding oil supplies, nor whether Abiotic is true or false.
DB is honest when they state they are about informed speculation and do not state anything that they do not prove. You treat opinion and belief as FACT, the mark of a closed, ignorant mind.
I have been paying attention, and, am beginning to think you really live under a bridge, seeking to bushwhack unwary intellects.
As to "Peak Oil", I don't know. But, this I do KNOW: It is in the interests of monopolists for us to BELIEVE that supplies are restricted and, to actually behave in a manner that restricts supply. This is a general truth, from the legal professions worst nightmare of having to decisively deal with criminals (insuring that crime does not pay), putting them out of a job (criminals would seriously consider the HIGH risks, as opposed to liberal handslaps, as their lawyers share in "proceeds of crime") to the grand protection racket of MIC actually creating and provoking conflict, so us stupid marks continue to pay them ever increasing tribute to "keep the peace".
|
Posted by Lukester on 03/05/11 04:51 PM
"DB: There is plenty of evidence that there are huge amounts of oil around the world and that the Anglo-American power elite has purposefully restricted oil exploration and processing to raise prices and confine oil drilling to the Middle East to maximize sociopolitical chaos and generate increased military tension to benefit the military industrial complex."
This assertion would have us believe that the various large industrializing nations have all scrutinized for evidence of huge amounts of oil around the world relative to future global aggregate demand, yet missed all those untapped reserves in a wondrous display of collective myopia, and have instead been "duped" by Anglosphere manipulations into believing in upcoming petroleum access criticality, just as we gullible members of the general public have been "duped" into believing this mere meme.
Never mind that today the notionally manipulable Western oil "majors" are in fact relegated to being the marginal players, and the various oil producing nations state oil companies are the real behemoths of oil production.
According to the DB the Anglosphere has "reached out" to the likes of PetroChina and Gazprom (in countries not exactly in bed with the), to enlist their help in maintaining this giant cover up of vast untapped oil supplies.
The thesis becomes strained and irrational to the point of contortion.
The assertion would have us believe the presumably wily and astute DB insights on this question without reservation, while we casually discard the combined astuteness of petroleum strategists in the governments advising some of the largest populations in the globe.
From Russia, to China, to India, to Brazil plus many populous nations such as Mexico and Indonesia, who will cease being petroleum exposures in this very decade " several of the largest of these are frantically scaling up their Nuclear plants both actual construction and planed over the next 20 years.
Their concern about reliable supply is (Daily Bell instructs us to believe) a "collective mirage", engineered by some powerful cliques in the west who can pull the wool over 3 billion pairs of eyes year in and year out (oil is plentiful, but they have all been duped by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers into believing it's scarce).
Meanwhile as these nations try to jump through the treacherous hoops of industrialisation in a world where the cost of energy is manifestly rising sharply and consistently across full decades, the astuteness that typically accompanies national struggles for survival has been masterfully blunted and collectively misdirected by some clever oligarchs in the West.
And this is all occurring in a world where a great many players now know full well, that they won't have cheap energy as did their Western nation counterparts industrializing a century before.
The Daily Bell see an energy "scarcity premium hoax", while the sum of the long range strategists in all these largest of global emerging economies quite manifestly ( by their aggressive buying of resources worldwide whenever possible " eg. Chinese buying oil assets in bulk in Canada and all over Africa) see a critically looming problem instead.
This is ***amply evidenced*** by the onslaught of energy market acquisitions all over the world by China, and the past year's frenetic stockpiling of uranium for future consumption, which has singlehandedly driven the spot Uranium price from $45 to $70 in less than a year.
These are all evidence of a petroleum criticality (global net production flatlining relative to robustly rising net global demand " which for the past full decade now has been consistently diverging year after year.
The Daily Bell editors wish to instill in readers the idea that THEY ALONE have spotted the underlying truth, and they imply that the best intelligence which emerging giants such as India and China, let alone any of the mature industrialized economies, can bring forth to analyze the truth of the matter on petroleum supply security, has instead been "duped" by a tiny coterie of western nation or Anglosphere power elites.
If you conclude the gospel truth on such large global resource questions is only to be had from reading in this one small (hermetic?) community therefore, you will swallow whole, the DB's "audacious" thesis " they assert these nations, drawing on the collective intelligence of populations one billion strong are the dupes, while the tiny "alternative viewpoint" DB community of a thousand meme watchers have instead discovered a truth which vast armies of analysts in these 1 billion plus population governments have missed.
The thesis seems more informed by ideological preference than by any fact finding.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Why do you continue to lie? Do you think people who visit here are so naive they do not know the truth? Repeating something over and over again (the world is running out of oil) doesn't make it so. You obviously have a larger agenda, one that is ever-impervious to facts.
----
Click to view link
----
Jerri's Corner: OIL"you better be sitting down when you read this!!
About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, 'I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground? Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, 'more than all the Middle East put together. Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana .. check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska "s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $53 trillion.
'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.. says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years, reportsThe Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the "Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana , through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the "Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should " because it's from 2006!
U.S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World
Stansberry Report Online " 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States .
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy ... WHY?
|
Posted by Bill Ross on 03/05/11 08:09 AM
This, of course is to make us dependent and trusting prey, which requires redistribution (and a hefty "caring" commission) to insulate people from the personal consequences of their actions which requires destroying the social values of "self-reliance" and accountability for dealing with the consequences of your own choices. In a general intellectual environment of "irresponsibility is COOL", those who claim "NO, it is a collective survival necessity" can be demonized as "uncaring and unfair". Elites NEED "irresponsibility is COOL", else, they would be collectively held to account.
And, a trusting, dependent population is the ideal PREY, since, when they are fed upon and claim "unfair", well, the law is the biggest predator of them all. This is not very "COOL".
|
Posted by Bill Ross on 03/05/11 07:32 AM
"If you systematically underestimate the strategic criticality of oil as you DB editors seem to do, you can construct such a thesis. Anyone taking that energy access criticality seriously in 2011 however, would find the core of this thesis irrational"
I find YOUR thesis irrational. It is not just about the supply of energy, it is also about the COST of energy. The point of the west is to PREVENT ME peoples from taking democratic control of their domains. If they ever succeed at this, they will demand that THEY, as opposed to favored multinational energy extractors get the FULL market value of their resources, which they will use to modernize and build their version of a "just" society. Recall that Iraq, under Saddam, according to relative quality of life indices with respect to other ME despotic regions was relatively civilized, with equal suffrage for women, a large, educated professional class, etc. This had to go. Iraq now has the kind of civilization that was desired: inter-factional fighting, allowing predators to feed undisturbed. To Iraqis, Saddam was "the good ole days".
The "strong man", proxy dictator model, employed to keep ME peoples in line has FAILED. ME peoples do not want anything except to be left alone, to pursue their OWN self-determination. They do not want western or any external rule. So, current approach is to keep factions fighting so they cannot turn as one against their common enemy. This is the best the west can do, because united peoples CANNOT be enslaved.
The west has LOST in the ME. Central control of what they want is unachievable. They hope that they can continue to prey, unobserved in the midst of they chaos they create. Won't happen, because other factions also have their eye on the ball and are aiming for REAL objectives, as opposed to faux philosophical goals, which they may give lip service to, as pretexts.
The apparent chaos and insanity is just cover for those who wish their REAL goals to remain undiscussed and unobserved. It is a shadow, puppet show "war of terror".
|
Posted by Lukester on 03/05/11 06:49 AM
"We have spent considerable time recently explaining how we believe the current Western-initiated wave of regime change sweeping the Middle East may replace "strong man rule" with Islamic republics. The idea, always, is to polarize religious ideologies in order to create tension between East and West.
Anglo-sphere money power then exploits this via military actions and by imposing further authoritarian mechanisms on its own citizens."
You are relegating no significance within this thesis, to the availability of reliable petroleum supplies in this decade and the next, while the most critical portion of global petroleum is produced and sold internationally by Muslim nations.
If the Western Power Elite were intent on fomenting radicalized Islam in order to corral Western nation peoples into an ever tighter authoritarianism, your thesis does not factor in the highly damaging effect that Gulf Nation radicalization would have on the security of oil supplies to any bidder worldwide.
Rationally, in a world where petroleum becomes ever more a strategic asset " not augmenting the already high risk of instability in the middle east becomes one of the most important tasks for all the world's largest energy consumers.
Instead your thesis paints a picture of the Anglosphere, with two of the most energy vulnerable nations on earth, acting like kids playing with firecrackers " willfully destabilizing the very nations upon whose petroleum they most critically depend.
If you systematically underestimate the strategic criticality of oil as you DB editors seem to do, you can construct such a thesis. Anyone taking that energy access criticality seriously in 2011 however, would find the core of this thesis irrational.
Western nations have spent decades trying precisely the opposite " to NOT encourage destabilization among their oil suppliers because radicalization of their oil suppliers comports a direct threat to reliable, affordable energy.
In their pursuit of stable, even "politically captive" energy suppliers " they have attempted and have indeed managed to keep "client states" among oil producers (who sell oil without too onerous political strings (egRussia) - but their entire purpose in maintaining those client states was to ***safeguard petroleum supply***.
You don't safeguard your petroleum supply by engaging in covert radicalization / destabilization of your own suppliers. I conclude the entire thesis has an irrational core due to this one massively large factor.
Ask the Chinese how seriously they take their future access to reliable supply of petroleum. They are deadly serious and concerned about this strategic vulnerability. Ditto many others.
But you need to buy the idea of super critical energy issues going forward being evident today, for this logic to make itself evident. Evidently to some here, it is not. When a thesis encounters a large logic hole " don't merely skirt the hole " modify the thesis instead.
Reply from The Daily Bell
You are relegating no significance within this thesis, to the availability of reliable petroleum supplies in this decade and the next, while the most critical portion of global petroleum is produced and sold internationally by Muslim nations.
DB: There is plenty of evidence that there are huge amounts of oil around the world and that the Anglo-American power elite has purposefully restricted oil exploration and processing to raise prices and confine oil drilling to the Middle East to maximize sociopolitical chaos and generate increased military tension to benefit the military industrial complex. Such chaos allows the installation of a new world currency and generally makes Western middle classes far more malleable in the face of authoritarianism.
----
If the Western Power Elite were intent on fomenting radicalized Islam in order to corral Western nation peoples into an ever tighter authoritarianism, your thesis does not factor in the highly damaging effect that Gulf Nation radicalization would have on the security of oil supplies to any bidder worldwide.
DB: See above. Western elites are up to their collective neck in fomenting these color revolutions as has been pointed out by numerous MAINSTREAM articles as well as those of the blogosphere. It is simply a fact that these color revolutions are being incited by the West. Obviously, the Anglosphere does not care a whit about your concern that "radicalization [will have] an effect on the security of oil supplies ...
----
Rationally, in a world where petroleum becomes ever more a strategic asset " not augmenting the already high risk of instability in the middle east becomes one of the most important tasks for all the world's largest energy consumers.
DB: You mean Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and other politicians, democratic and republic (along with their Tory counterparts) see managing the "risk of instability" in the Middle East as one of their most important tasks? It's come out recently that George Bush was apparently intent on bombing Iran with nuclear missiles and was only stopped by interference from the Pentagon. These are your concerned "risk managers?"
----
Instead your thesis paints a picture of the Anglosphere, with two of the most energy vulnerable nations on earth, acting like kids playing with firecrackers " willfully destabilizing the very nations upon whose petroleum they most critically depend.
DB: Yes, the political system and the entire cultural environment of the West has been perverted by money power. Up is down and black is white. The idea is to destabilize the West in a variety of ways in order to generate more complete global governance. This is not the work of kids but likely of evil dynastic banking families, mostly operating out of the City of London. This is the same crowd that has foisted central banking on the world, along with fiat money and ruinous booms and busts. You ask people to believe this group is willing to ruin whole economies and yet act "responsibly" when it comes to oil? Your logic is needs to be readjusted.
----
If you systematically underestimate the strategic criticality of oil as you DB editors seem to do, you can construct such a thesis. Anyone taking that energy access criticality seriously in 2011 however, would find the core of this thesis irrational.
DB: Our approach is not irrational. Your endless braying about Peak Oil which is nothing more than an Anglosphere manipulation, is misleading in the extreme. Peak Oil was a concept of M. King Hubbert who was a leading technocrat of his day. Today, using his arguments, governments are installing Smart Grid meters that will track every drop of your energy you use and inform the power-that-be of HOW you used it as well. This is the authoritarian fruit of M. King Hubbert. And what is Technocracy? "Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields ... In a technocracy decision makers would be selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital they hold. (Wikipedia). Hubbert had every reason to develop his flawed Malthusian concept in order to justify the Platonic totalitarianism he so yearned for. This is the man from whom you take your arguments.
----
Western nations have spent decades trying precisely the opposite " to NOT encourage destabilization among their oil suppliers because radicalization of their oil suppliers comports a direct threat to reliable, affordable energy.
DB: No, Western powers have spent decades concentrating the exploration and development of oil in the Middle East in order to render the price of oil vulnerable and the possibility of chaos ever-present.
----
You don't safeguard your petroleum supply by engaging in covert radicalization / destabilization of your own suppliers. I conclude the entire thesis has an irrational core due to this one massively large factor.
DB: You conclude incorrectly based on your idea that the elites and their enablers are engaged in some sort of responsible enterprise, as fathers would be with their children. Didn't Mubarak take this faux-paternal stance just before he resigned? Everyone knew it was propaganda. What planet do you live on again?
----
But you need to buy the idea of super critical energy issues going forward being evident today, for this logic to make itself evident. Evidently to some here, it is not. When a thesis encounters a large logic hole " don't merely skirt the hole " modify the thesis instead.
DB: There is no logic hole. There is only your shrill assertion that Western leaders and the great banking families of the Anglosphere have the world's best interests at heart. A thousand years of bloody history tells us otherwise, but you, in ludicrous determination to insist on their ultimate "caring" and "paternalism"
would have us believe that these evil people live in selfless concern for Western civ. They will get along just find with or without oil and if they trail chaos in their wake, that is exactly what they intend. Prince Philip has reportedly said that he hopes to return to earth as a virus in order to kill as many people as possible. He is one of your concerned elite leaders.
|
Posted by Bill Ross on 03/05/11 06:28 AM
Translation to RealSpeak: We need to understand their divisions so we can inflame and provoke them, refocusing their defensive wrath from "the man behind the curtain, madly pulling levers, protesting his innocence and good will" to other points of view. Divide and Conquer. A very sharp knife that cuts both ways. Those who use it also destroy themselves by using it against themselves, in the grasp of factional power, splitting factions.
This is an evolutionary process, which once fully complete will result in individual POV's, a rejection of "belief" (conflict of imposing too survival threatening) and restoration of "individual right to survive" summing to, by common interest among the sane, "collective right to survive" and re-focusing on common interest.
In other words, rejection of "rule of opinionated man" and restoration of the "rule of law", the pinnacle of peace and civilization, our heritage, left by our far wiser ancestors whom have "been there, done that":
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Yes, thanks for the link. What a surprise ...
In fact it is somewhat amazing that the Post can report a story like this. It avoids any mention of the obvious culpability of the Anglosphere in these revolutions. This responsibility has been amply documented throughout the media - especially in the blogosphere but also by the UK Telegraph and other mainstream sources.
Logically, if the US is partially responsible for these latest color revolutions, then the predictable outcome is something the elites are responsible for as well. This shows us CLEARLY that the Western elites are intent on creating an Islamic crescent in the Middle East and Africa. It also reignites the issue of 9/11 and its unanswered questions.
----
Obama administration prepares for possibility of new post-revolt Islamist regimes
The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region's politics.
An internal assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region.
snip---
|
Posted by Abul-husayn on 03/04/11 04:06 PM
Bingo.
"We have written consistently that the Muslim intelligentsia likely understands the current manipulations taking place and that this is the Achilles' heel of current Anglosphere black ops. Blowback is a b-tch."
Not merely the "intelligentsia" but the everyday muslim understands quite well that the non-Jesus "Christianity" we've seen in history sets the children of Japheth (northern "white" peoples) against their real heritage in Abraham, which is dominion as God's ministers in the earth (not Rome's or Israel's ministers).
After all, we've been watching the machinations and outworkings of this ancient political coup over Europe for fifteen centuries. What you call the "Anglosphere" has been witness to it, but not the authors or architects of it.
But you need to reach a very long perspective to see how it all fits neatly together as a coherent singularity. Looking at the last two hundred years, or the last five hundred, or the last two thousand, is far too narrow a view, except from that longer perspective.
As for "blow-back," (1) bin Laden is a tool of the West, (2) measure the actual alleged "blow-back" against the potential and seemingly likely blow-back from a population of over a billion sorely assaulted people, and you'll see that the authorship of what we're calling "blow-back" is Western; and (3) I made Hajj ~ to Mecca and Medina ~ in 2002, five months after 9/11. The only "concern" I heard about the American involvements in the eastern hemisphere were for the poor Americans who were outsmarting themselves and would suffer self-inflicted consequences, just like so many short-lived nations before have done.
As for the invasions of the terminally-collapsed millennial muslim world, which did not start in the Twentieth Century, the only view I heard was "Ho-hum, there they go again, shooting themselves in the foot."
In short, the muslims of the eastern hemisphere do not see America as any kind of real threat, but only as a weak nation ~ weak because so politically, ideologically, and religiously factionated ~ suffering a little temporary insanity that will harm America more than anyone else.
I see a slightly different picture, but from a much longer perspective, that includes a view of much that the old-world muslims don't see.
As for the real architects of aggression, they know their time is short. Listen carefully and you'll hear it in the hysteria of their "Let's you and him fight" rhetoric ...
 |
Posted by Summer on 03/04/11 03:39 PM
Most perceive her assassination as paid for by her husband; otherwise there would be no way for him to ever get power, politically and intellectually he was a nobody, so the sympathy vote was a great help, as well as the strange next of kin control of the Peoples Party.
The western media have created an aura of greatness for her because she was pro-west, which may have offered 'stability' for Pakistan (although recent back-stabbing by the west of their allies leave that uncertain).
|
|
