On "How US-UK Create 'Terrorist' States: Yemen as a Case Study," by Tim Coles. Zombie America.

...academics can refer to the country as a "failed state", perhaps even invoking your "Responsibility to Protect" R2P, omitting, of course, exactly why it has become a "failed state" and why one needs to exercise R2P.

Via: "How US-UK Create 'Terrorist' States: Yemen as a Case Study," by Tim Coles. Zombie America.

Of course, that is absolutely correct; however, it must also be understood that there are and have always been competing forces within the various empires the motivations of which forces differ greatly even while policies such as the Responsibility to Protect are being carried out or used or abused. Not everyone behind RtoP (aka R2P) is pro-negatively exploitative empire. I certainly am not behind negatively exploitative empire; however, I'm not in favor of violence as a means to a supposedly enlightened end either.

The linked article can be read in several ways of course. It can be read for instance as suggesting that the whole "plan" is designed on purpose to create terrorists to then fight and thereby support the major weapons industries of the empires in question. I have no doubt that historically there have been such greedy and sociopathic and racist elements within those empires and that those elements still exist. That does not mean that they necessarily have the upper hand in policy making and practice. They have huge influence but can be shut down at times though not without risk on the part of those who do that to them. The article can also be read as a great muddle-through where not one of the groups really has a handle on the history or the plan. I read it both ways at the same time.

Since the Libyan uprising and the first clear application of the RtoP UN resolutions, I've been calling for a clear statement on the who, what, where, when, and why of RtoP. It is clear that right now, RtoP is not being used consistently. Barack Obama has been exceedingly vague about where and when, etc., RtoP should be or will be used. I believe he doesn't really know but is being largely led by the nose by unfolding and more than somewhat unanticipated events.

My personal desire is that the human race renounce violence; but in the interim, while people are still under the evil spell, at the very least, even the sleepwalkers can be requested and expected to move to reducing the overall level of hypocrisy.

If humanitarian intervention is correct, then US self-interest and UN interest always lie in humanitarian intervention. It cannot also be argued that US self-interest is that humanitarian intervention is to be done on a case-by-case basis where everything but humanitarian factors are weighed against humanitarian ones and the anti- or non-humanitarian prevails.

If there is a local police force, it isn't to be allowed to say we'll protect the White people but not the Blacks, including from racist Whites. If there is to be a world-law law-enforcement department or world police, it isn't to be allowed to say we'll protect the White people but not the Blacks, including from racist Whites. It isn't to be allowed to say we'll protect the Jews from the Arabs but not the Arabs from the Jews, including from racist Jews. It isn't to be allowed to say we'll protect the friends of neoliberal economics but not socialists, including from racist neoliberal economists and those who hire them. It must say that it will keep the peace, even though it won't truly know what real peace is (non-violent). It must move in the direction of non-hypocrisy until it finally gets all the way there. It can't say we'll protect the takers at all. If it is going to protect democracy, then it must stand for a truly informed (freedom of speech and press) electorate that may freely choose any leader (national citizen or non and from any party or none). A truly informed electorate will never choose a taker as its leader. Only those kept in the dark ever choose a taker.

Look, there will be one-world government. All that remains is what kind.

I know that violent humanitarian-intervention is oxymoronic and hypocritical. However, concerning those who are not pacifists but who claim not to be sociopaths, they are asked to then move away from the sociopathic, unenlightened-selfish side of things and toward the non-violent and humanitarian.

Therefore, in keeping with the spirit of the linked article and as I have written many, many times before, we must, among many things, work to 1) redress legitimate grievances 2) stop being negatively exploitative and 3) turn from violence and arms in general.

Turning to clean, green, alternative energy (geothermal, solar, wind, hydrogen, tidal, etc.) is of course of primary importance. Helping all other so-called would-be imperial rivals to do likewise is also of primary importance. It makes no ultimate sense whatsoever militarily or otherwise to deny China for instance from accessing oil, gas, coal, uranium, etc., around the planet when it makes much better, even perfect, sense to work directly with the Chinese people in creating clean, green, alternatives to that very oil, gas, coal, and uranium, which are killing the Chinese too and the planet upon which we all live.

It is high time that the human race rise above the backward notion that one is up by keeping others down. All that backward thinking manages to do is to keep everyone much further down than would otherwise be the case. If the human race would wake up and do the right things, the circumstance of the supposedly best off now would pale by comparison to the circumstances of the worst off then. In other words the poorest of the poor in the near future would be vastly better off then the richest of the rich is now.

It would take much less to accomplish that than I suspect most people initially imagine. It would require a complete change of mind concerning capitalism, corporatism, and right-wing socialism. By right-wing socialism, I mean coercive, centralized (top-down) socialism, which is no real socialism in my view. Stalin was very right-wing in that sense. By contrast, grassroots run, council, bottom-up then top-across is left-wing. This spectrum has nothing to do with agreement with libertinism.

The Christian Commons is left-communism and non-Marxist for instance but does not condone libertinism (in this case, sexual promiscuity/degeneracy/lack of moral self-restraint including homosexuality) even while it doesn't coerce any who are outside its voluntary community. The rules are not occulted to those on the outside and apply to those who enter in, just as with Jesus and the Temple of God that he cleaned out as a sign to Heaven, Earth, and the Cosmos. To be extra clear here, I don't vote in secular elections for or against homosexuals engaging in their behavior. The Temple will eventually though be understood to be everything. All souls will cast off evil. All souls will then truly be one, unified.

The gist is that the market is ideas and if everyone were to buy into cooperating rather than competing to take, hoard, cheat, etc., we'd all be vastly better off. So, why try so hard to sell competition as the spirit when the other spirit is better? Why be convinced and work to convince others that there is no incentive in being good? It makes no sense. There is huge incentive in being cooperative over competitive. There is huge incentive in public ownership over private.

Selfishness apart from the whole (and for certain of the religious, God the whole) is not hardwired into us because nothing is fixed in us. There isn't one thing that can't be changed. The saying that "the sky is the limit" is true. However, inconsistency is what is holding humanity down. Not understanding that what's best for the self is to know the interconnectedness and interdependence on this level of existence — this sleepwalking, trance, operantly conditioned, brainwashed level.

Real socialism, as I've been writing for many years now, is, would be, running the planet as a family household but where that household is not limited by debt-money.

Before the Zeitgeist Movement replies, the Christian Commons predates "TZM." I was writing about the moneyless household before Peter Joseph — not his real full name — wrote or said a thing on it on the Internet. TZM read me, not the other way around. They asked me to join, but they wouldn't answer my questions about sexual promiscuity — though I already knew the answer — and didn't like my real Christianity, anti-Jiddu Krishnamurti (anti-Christ), anti-atheist/agnostic positions.

"That which is eternal, new, is a living thing; therefore, it cannot be made permanent, and a mind that wants to make it permanent will never find it." — Jiddu Krishnamurti

Peter Joseph subscribes to Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti didn't understand the eternal and living God. He disagreed with Jesus. He thought, he, Krishnamurti, knew better by knowing nothing. Krishnamurti taught nonsense.

You'll not find the ultimate answers on the path laid down by Peter Joseph. Peter Joseph is lost to God and isn't seeking to be found. He can't hear Jesus's voice. He doesn't recognize it.

US money issued today is debt-money. It is created only by means of creating interest-bearing loans/bonds. That never had to be the case. We can overturn that system instantly too simply by nationalizing the Federal Reserve and then issuing interest-free, debt-free United States Notes, which also should be used to pay off the "legitimate" parts of the National Debt. The rest should be written off with the fraudsters losing. The supply of money and it's velocity (speed and degree of flow or circulation as opposed to savings) could easily be tracked in real-time. Money would be issued by the people's government and directly into the economy (household) to pay for whatever the people need first and then want after all the needs are met. The supply could be controlled so that it perfectly matches real productivity rather than speculation. In that way, there would be no inflation or deflation, ever.

If the people want everyone to have a great house, decide that as a national project, issue the funds, and build them. That's just one example. The sky's the limit.

There would be no austerity. Austerity is a complete lack of imagination and lack of action to eliminate scarcity. It is an artificial self-imposition.

The Tea Partiers, deficit hawks, and fiscal conservatives don't understand economics. Some people are great accountants, others financial wizards and speculators; but they don't necessarily know real economics. Most people think economics is mostly macro-private-banking. However, private banks are not required for an economy. In fact, private banks are more a hindrance than a help.

Money is truly digital now. How are you going to pay your bills with physical gold unless we subject ourselves to a complete collapse just short of starvation where even gold won't buy the last bite of food? Are you going to physically visit everyone you pay to hand him or her gold coins? You're going to lug that much gold around? That's not to mention the huge environmental destruction that accompanies gold mining or the fact that gold is a limited commodity or that the superrich have the most gold already. So, where does all of that leave you/us?

The only problems with paper money or public-digital-banking accounting is a lack of imagination and righteousness. The criminals with imagination don't lack ways of cheating with gold. What's the point of pushing gold when the opposite approach is superior anyway? Why work so hard to convince everyone to imagine gold as something it never truly was? It was never even remotely a panacea even under the "best" circumstances.

Who would be pushing gold the most but those who are mining, processing, and hoarding it, etc.? Have they been paragons of virtue? Hardly.

If you want to buy and sell anything, try buying and selling the best idea. Gold is not God. Gold is mammon. All "money," from digital to gold or any other "medium of exchange" is mammon. It's all a false god. We don't really need any of it. We simply need the decision that everyone in the house eats, etc. We all pitch in to bring forth. This is not a new idea. It's in the New Testament. It predates Jesus in the flesh here on Earth though, as Jesus himself more than hinted. "In the beginning...."

What we need to do is return to the real root. Once upon a time, there was no mammon. There was only giving and sharing. Then the spirit of evil entered in to some. They fell to the temptation. They took and didn't give and didn't share except hypocritically. The rest is history. Now we have capitalism. Socialism came along trying to get back some of the original spirit, but many minds promoting it didn't understand the real root. They pushed violence and dictatorship to counter the inherent violence and dictatorship (selfishness apart from the whole who is God) of the capitalist system.

Now we must see the light. We must recognize the error of violence and coercive usurpation and take the other road.

A planet run by atheist technocrats won't work. A planet based upon the closed-loop thinking of the so-called scientific method won't work either. We need a spiritual awakening that brings forth beyond mere "science." Let that science come to understand it's self-imposed limitations. Test, and that which doesn't yield to such testing, that which is above such abilities to be tested, that which is trying to bring humanity out of the darkness that is the lack of faith and trust, will not allow humanity to reach its fullest potential. We must open up to faith and trust beyond testing that closes down everything beyond.

The best theoretical physicists know they are bumping up against the metaphysical. It's time the whole of humanity understands that it has always been so with the flesh. Jesus knew it and still does.

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.