All worldly empires have been the wrong direction. The sooner everyone in the world knows that the better. Every such empire has been built on a pack of lies. The whole premise behind such empires is false.
The British Empire inherited the worldly Empire spirit. Other empires came and went. Each Western and Middle Eastern empire (including the Mongol Khans and the Islamic Caliphates) contained the remnant seeds/harvest of the Roman Empire spirit, which it self contained the seeds of the remnant seeds/harvest of the Greeks. The Greeks picked up from the Persians, the Persians from the Egyptians and Babylonians and Hebrews, and the Babylonians from the earlier empires of that general region in and around Mesopotamia. The centers of power moved about. They are still in flux. Of course, there were Indian and Chinese empires as well that did interact with the others to some degree. There were also empires in the Americas.
Well, as for the current situation in the Middle East, the British are largely responsible for continuing the bad example that the Bush/Cheney neocons and false Zionist have followed.
The British, as we have mentioned before, changed over from a coal-driven economy to an oil-driven economy. They decided that to sustain their hegemony, to control resources and markets, to continue to lord it over at least some of the world, they had to control the known Middle Eastern oil sources and supply lines.
Before WWI broke out, the imperial powers of Europe that included the Ottoman Empire, were lining up on sides based upon wholly selfish nationalistic interests. In order to grow its coalition and to maintain it during the war, the British made many ambiguous and conflicting promises. They made secret deals with France to redraw the map to reflect the French and British desire for their spheres of influence. At the same time, the British promised the Arab Hashemites (direct descendants of Mohammed) that the Arabs would become independent.
The British made this promise to the Arabs in exchange for the Arabs rising up against the Ottoman Turks, who were aligned with Germany against Britain.
At the same time, in order to pull the US into the war on the side of the British, the British made promises to false-Zionist Jews, who wanted an independent state in Palestine.
This double dealing runs to the root of the current Middle Eastern problems.
After WWI, Britain didn't keep its promise to the Arabs. It essentially kept its deal with France and the false Zionists. The Arabs did obtain some independence, but it was all subject to the carving up of the Arab and Islamic areas into states under either French or British ultimate control. Pan-Arabism was denied.
The British controlled Iraqi oil and the supply line in Palestine. It also controlled Egypt and the Suez Canal along with the French through which most of the oil was shipped via oil tankers.
In the intervening years, WWII broke out. Hitler was bitter about how the false Zionists had influenced the US to come into the war on the side of Britain and how they contributed financially to Germany's downfall in WWI. This, of course, was only one facet of the infinitely faceted reasons for WWII. Everyone is made to pay in the here and now for his or her selfishness and lies and those of others.
Well after WWII supposedly ended (if any war ever really ends until real universal repentance), the Egyptians, under Gamal Abdel Nasser as President, declared independence from the British Empire on June 18, 1956. Nasser wanted to boost the Egyptians, so his followers and he tried to obtain international financing for the Aswan High Dam, the idea of which was to supply more water for agriculture, etc., and for hydroelectricity. The US initially backed the project.
Meanwhile, Israel had shopped for hi-tech weapons to threaten and fight Arabs. Neither the British nor the US would sell them. The French though sold them fighter jets. Egypt wanted counter-balancing weapons but was denied by all the powers except Russia, which wanted some balance against the US in particular.
When the US cut off funding to complete the dam, Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal so that the user fees could be applied to completing the dam. It had been a privatized operation (the Suez Canal Company) controlled by the French (who built the canal) and by a severely waning British Empire.
The British, under their false-conservative prime minister, Anthony Eden, convinced the Israelis to attack Egypt so that the British could use that as a pretext to also attack to retake control of the canal. The false Zionists dutifully complied with the British request, since they hated the Egyptians and Arabs in general who were working to keep down the Zionists' larger ambitions for the entire region and ultimately the world. It is always empire against empire even if such empires are only potential empires.
Now, Anthony Eden tried his best to paint Nasser as a fascist dictator (on the order of Hitler) in the making. Of course, this was a complete mischaracterization, the same kind of mischaracterization that is going on concerning Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Ahmadinejad of Iran.
History repeats itself for those who allow the powers that be to inflict amnesia upon the masses through sound bits and the perception management of falsified history.
Nasser was a populist. He was not a large-c Communist. He was an anti-large-c Communist. He did though used coercion to bring about agrarian and educational reforms. Choose your poison. Choose that for which coercion will be applied. That's the error of all on the spectrum of falsehood. He was not an adherent of sharia.
As a result of the British failure, the British were in a desperate financial condition. They had spent their treasure on a politically futile war. When they approached president Eisenhower, he told them they would have to back off completely before he would help at all.
Eisenhower was very upset with the British for having launched the phony war concerning which Eden reportedly hadn't even consulted Eisenhower. Eisenhower was looking at the larger picture concerning the Soviet Union. The soviets, under the direction of a core group of international Jewish anarchists largely duped into Bolshevism (obfuscating state-capitalists under Lenin), had pulled Russia out of WWI after the 1917 revolution overthrowing the tyrannical czar.
Russia threatened London and Paris with nuclear attacks if they didn't back off. Eisenhower sure didn't want to test the Russian's resolve in the matter. He knew that an outright WWIII was just over the precipice and that British ego had brought it on.
Now, the world is facing much the same problems for much the same reasons, because George W. Bush never studied history.
The same redrawing the map, offering up pretexts for war, preemptive strikes, use of proxies to start larger wars, making false promises, forcing regime changes, and disseminating disinformation (propaganda and lies) is all still going on.
When will they ever learn?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)