Why It Matters: Four Years After Gaddafi, Libya Is a Failed State

Updated: April 12, 2015.

When the "Arab Spring" hit Libya, I said it was extremely premature. When it didn't end and when Qaddaffi (his English spelling) started having the unarmed protesters attacked, I called upon him to stop and to immediately start working with them. Here's why: Four Years After Gaddafi, Libya Is a Failed State - FPIF.

04091501When Qaddaffi didn't stop attacking and when he said there would be a door-to-door bloodbath, I said it was time for him to go. I also had been calling upon the US to do nothing but humanitarian aid. Of course, even though the UN's Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is truly international law, the last thing the UN should have done was destroy the Qaddaffi regime without permanently occupying the country via UN peacekeepers who would not simply roll out of Libya at the first armed uprising against them but would stay and enforce law and order.

Naturally, Qaddaffi thought that the only way to have any semblance of such law and order was to be ruthless. He was rightly afraid of Islam, rightly defined by Alastair Crooke as more than merely inclusive of the Islamic State. Assad took the exact same position but without Qaddaffi's level of vitriol.

US foreign policy has been extremely bad for decades. I'm not sure it has ever actually been good.

Right now, US foreign policy is still mostly neoconservative. There are the self-styled "liberal interventionists," but they are not the driving force for war against Iran for instance.

Barack Obama has been straddling the fence more than most pundits realize. He's not easy to read, and that's because he's confused and vacillates so much. That vacillation has allowed the hawks to retain much more voice than they otherwise would have.

The Iranian nuclear-weapons program doesn't exist and after the revolution, never did. The entire issue is a mindless distraction. The Euromaidan "revolution" was a complete mistake for the same reasons attacking Qaddaffi and Assad have been severe errors.

Ukraine has a very strong Nazi contingent, not that there aren't Bolsheviks (who, under nearly total Jewish leadership at the top, perpetrated the Holodomor and other massive atrocities) in Donbass. See: "Stalin's Jews: We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish," by Sever Plocker (himself of Jewish extraction).

Barack Obama doesn't have much time left. He's up against a recently resurgent neoconservative US legislature (which he allowed to happen). He should have stood up the way the non-interventionist progressives wanted him to on a whole host of issues. Rather than do that, he ignored banking fraud, he dragged his feet on ending wars, he caved into starting more wars, he failed to close Guantanamo, he clamped down on Venezuela (as if it had become a terrorist state), he was weak on environmental issues, he didn't put his foot down against the Zionists repeatedly and savagely attacking Gaza, his economic fiscal stimulus was way too small and poorly targeted, and he just never took the non-interventionist progressive message to the American people as a champion. That's because his heart was never fully in any of it.

He brought us Obamacare rather than single-payer, which single-payer was the most popular choice going into the discussions/hearings in the Senate. Rather than force single-payer to remain on the table, he completely ignored it as even an option.

Where are we now? The US has been parading in Europe as a show of resolve against Russia. However, Russia wants a war like it wants another hole in its head. There is absolutely no desire on the part of Vladimir Putin to roll into other nations to take them over. His primary concern is with holding back US imperial ambitions that clearly appear designed to break up Russia and doing so via regime change to turn Russia back into a basket case and a neoliberal playground for the reappearance of hyper-greedy Jewish oligarchs. The top oligarchs who took over Russia after the fall of the USSR were reportedly some 13 Jews out of the top 14 oligarchs, just as Jews had been at the top of the Bolshevik movement. Even Vladimir Putin is either confused on the issue or afraid to touch it or both.

The Jewish aspect here is hotly debated. There are anti-Jews (those who are ethnically bigoted against people of Jewish extraction) who condemn the oligarchs as if greed is in the Jewish DNA (which it is not). Then there are the Jewish apologists who make endlessly excuses for Jews rather than admitting that there are Jews who do horrendously evil acts.

...of the seven oligarchs who controlled 50% of Russia's economy during the 1990s, six were Jewish: Berezovsky, Vladimir Guzinsky, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Friedman and Valery Malkin. That fact is incontestable - but it is the result not of some grand conspiracy, but of the way the Soviet Union restricted Jews' ability to assimilate and rise up in society. While ethnic Slavs dominated all the best career slots in the highly bureaucratised official society, Jews who wanted to get ahead were forced into the black market economy. When communism collapsed and the black market was legalised as free market capitalism, the Jewish entrepreneurs had a head start. (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/02/russia.lukeharding1 )

That's nothing short of pathetic rationalizing.

The excuse making is still ongoing. "Myths and reality of Russian oligarchs," 05.11.2013:

The second highest in terms of numbers are Jews, 38 individuals or 19 percent, with the proportion in the population of Russia 0.11 percent. Their total wealth is $109 billion, an average of 2.87 million per person. The poorest of them is worth $0.5 billion, the richest - $16.5 billion dollars.

You will kindly note the date of that article: 2013. Then recall that all the top original Jewish "Oligarchs" of the infamous period under Yeltsin, reportedly with the sole exception of Roman Abramovich, ended up fleeing Russia. What would Russia look like today had those Jewish oligarchs retain power rather than losing it due to Vladimir Putin saving Russia from their hyper-selfishness and ethnocentrism (Jewish supremacy/Zionism)?

Why does all of this matter? It matters because the top of the neocon movement is made up of Zionists. Zionism is Jewish through and through. Gentile Zionists are insane. They don't realize that they are backing racism, as Zionism is definitely racist. They consider themselves the chosen race (not merely an ethnic group but a "race").

Frankly, I don't hold with dividing humanity into "races." Yes, there are very dark-skinned and very light-skinned people based upon DNA; but race, as it is currently applied, is a poorly conceived construct. There was a time when each nation or people was considered a race. A tribe (extended family) was a race. In that sense, the term makes sense. The original Zionists, however, mean race in the "White" versus "Black" sense.

What's to be done? Realizing all of this and not being afraid to openly discuss it is the beginning. Shrinking from it out of fear of reprisals and being banned, etc., by the Zionist powers that be is the surefire way of never overcoming, never being free of it, never freeing the planet of it, never turning the Zionists themselves from it.

To be clear, not everyone who calls himself or herself a Zionist subscribes to the original Zionism, but that can't alter the foundations of that Zionism. I'm speaking about political Zionism here, not religious Zionism.

Authentic religious Zionism is actually included in Christianity, not what's called Christian-Zionism. The Zionism in that "Christian-Zionism" is the political type of Zionism.

Certainly, not all people of Jewish ethnic extraction are political Zionists. Also, plenty of ethnic Jews are areligious as well. Let me also add that to be anti-Zionism, to be opposed to the original political Zionism, is not necessarily to be anti-ethnic Jew.

However, there are Zionists in high places who have openly contended that it is genetically built into non-Jews to hate Jews. That idea itself is racist or ethnic bigotry. The idea is patently false. I detect that it is actually an excuse for Zionist supremacy. It is one of the evil excuses used to take Palestinian-Arab lands.

And what is the Islamic State (IS)? It is the Arab mirror-image of Zionism. Islam was Mohammed's answer to Talmudic Judaism and militant Christianity (an oxymoron).

It there a clash of civilizations that is leading the planet to WWIII? Absolutely. It is all historically religiously based, but much of the religious base is from the desire for ethnic supremacy on the parts of the top leaders of the ethnic groups. In other words, it's all about self-centeredness at the expense of all the dupes and would-be minions.

What is the authentic Christian position? Jesus taught his followers to be the servants of each other and definitely not to lord it over one another, which is the exact opposite of Talmudic Judaism and Islam. He also preached non-violence, obviously. How can the servant serve while beating his or her fellows?

Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. (Matthew 20:25-27 KJV)

Let's get some things clear. Monarchies and secular governments are incompatible with Islam. Also, US foreign policy has been driving many nations together against the US. That foreign policy is also breaking up NATO along economic lines and where Europeans have awakened to the fact that simply going along with whatever the US dictates is a recipe for European devastation in a war with Russia and Russia's allies (it does have allies).

The Saudi "royal" family hate the Iranians not simply because of the Sunni/Shia divide but because Iran is a theocracy and not a monarchy. The Saudis have been trying to coopt and control traditional Sunni Islam, which Sunnism is against monarchism. Egypt has the same problem but from the secular perspective. Turkey, under Erdogan, has a not so hidden desire to be a caliphate. Furthermore, China's new Asian Bank is designed to destroy the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency. How long do you think it will be before Israel joins it?

What will the US neocons/Zionists say then? When will the United States wake up to the fact that the Zionists in Israel will drop the US as Israel's global protector in a second once the US loses its global dominance enough?

What's the worldly way out? How does that way jibe with prophecy?

Tom1

Tom Usher

The US must reverse course regarding Assad, Putin, and Zionism. It needs to change its economic system away from the Zionist-banking model we have right now: "Monetary-and-Banking-Reform Platform for The United States."

It is indeed true that the contents of the prophetic discourses are not at all confined to the future. Everything that God has to announce to mankind, revelations concerning His will, admonitions, warnings, He is able to announce through the mouth of the prophet. But His determinations with reference to the future as a rule are connected with prophetical utterances of the latter kind. The prophets are watchmen, guardians of the people, who are to warn the nation, because they see the dangers and the judgments approaching, which must put in their appearance if the divine will is disregarded. The prophets interpret also for the people that which is happening and that which has occurred, e.g. the defeats which they have suffered at the hands of their enemies, or the grasshopper plague (Joel), or a famine. They lay bare the inner reason for external occurrences and explain such events in their connection with the providential government of God. This gives to prophecy a powerful inner unity, notwithstanding the great differences of times and surrounding circumstances. ~ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

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 Holocaust, Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.