When you try plan for the future, you have to look upon the present, the relationship between the power players of the world, the resources you loose, and the resources you gain.

I am not to tell exactly, but we are not loosing right now, we are gaining a little, but we need to keep up the pace to win the initiative.

Ahmadinejad is vile fox, and should not be underestimated at any cost, he has no scruples, and he will stop at nothing, no price is too high to pay, and the very core of his ideology is sin and deceit.

That is why we have to be the opposite; the good guys, the humanistic, the benevolent and the graceful. A conflict will always be two-sided, and we are one of the sides, so we have to decide on our own good course.

Now, we have cornered Ahmadinejad a little, he has lost some steam, but he is not in any way beaten, far from, he is still the most powerful adversary we have ever met here in the West. Not because of his resources, he has a lot, but because he is extremely intelligent and dedicated to his course. So far, he has met little or no resistance, and he has a sincere feeling of almighty powerfulness, but he is getting a little itchy, so he is wary, in this situation he will do anything to turn the tables. We should be prepared for at major attack anywhere, we have to be vigilant.

Now Ahmadinejad will not be fooled, so we should not let him decide the next move, we should make one ourselves.

My proposal is to refocus on Libya. Libya is liberated, but it seems to me, that they need some help when it comes to rebuilding their economy. They are hard-pressed when it comes to restructuring, and they are desperate for a helping hand. We are in the best position to do just that, rebuild Libya. We need to make a plan for the rebuilding of the country, with respect for the unique heritage of the land. There are many warring factions, and we need to  try to mend a little on the warring, and give them something else to think about. Money is there in the oil industry, and we can simply start remaking the industry, and redistribute the money to the people of Libya, hereby giving them what they need; clothes to put on their body, food in their mouth and a bright new future.

When the basic industrial infrastructure is in place, we can help the Libyans with education, community building, other industries a sound police force, a well working system of justice and on top of this a three-tier democratic constitution with president, upper house and lower house.

They also need a fresh start on media, and a restructuring of their medical system.

We need to start at once, put out a plan, get it vouched for by the friends of ours in Libya, and then start the process.

Off cause it should be on the call of the Libyan people themselves, and not our industrial premises. It should be absolutely uncorrupt, fair, and made in the interest of the Libyan people. It can be done, and could be a showcase for Syria and other countries we want to help.

Build them a free, humanistic, sound system of government, and we have made something. Something that has nothing to do with war, but all to do with spreading peace, love and justice to the people of the democratic world.

G-d bless, and that speech was amazing, and thank you for your help.

Categories: America, Democracy, Libya, Love Tags:
  1. Rene’ Descartes
    January 26th, 2012 at 09:47 | #1

    Hallo Asger. Let’s help the pathetic situation we have in the world by first being honest on all sides and find common ground. In any conflict, the first casualty is always the TRUTH. Hence any assessment of the conflict is always an error. The powers that be (The 1%) Are going down as the truth become known, therefore they promote conflicts to keep the truth a casualty. Please my friend, don’t support them. The Jewish people are sadly being had like everybody else, and you can describe that in detail yourself one day. The Christians are equally to blame; let me explain why they have been had, by the very same ‘cabal’.
    From time to time, I read about condemnations of religion coming from non-religious groups and individuals, especially concerning the all-too-common violence perpetrated in the name of religious gods. Indeed there is plenty to condemn.
    Altogether too many religious sects of both major and minor religions, despite verbally professing a desire for peace and justice in the world, are actually pro-war, pro-homicide and pro-violence in practice (or they may be silent on the subject, which is, according to moral theology, the same as being pro-violence).
    Obvious examples include those portions of the three major war-justifying religions of the world: fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Zionism, the followers of the Talmud.
    I use the term fundamentalist in the sense that the religious person, who ascribes to a fundamentalist point of view, believes, among other dogmatic belief, that their scriptures are flawless and thus they can find passages in their holy books that justify homicidal violence against their perceived or fingered enemies, while simultaneously ignoring the numerous contradictory passages that forbid violence and homicide and instead prescribe love, hospitality, mercy, forgiveness and reconciliation. All scriptures are written by scribes who has little comprehension and many flaws, and not by God. And only God knows what their motives really were when they used their quills.
    Behind the scenes, of course, there are hidden elites, the Cabal — amoral, politically and financially motivated operatives who are embedded in these religious organizations — who, through the strength of their political power, can easily manipulate the followers into demand war, not against the followers enemies, but rather against the enemies of the ruling elites: the politicians, the financiers and the other exploiters of natural resources.
    And so nonviolent portions of the various religions – and they are there, albeit often hidden and censored – can be erroneously painted with the same brush that justifiably condemns the hypocrisy and the violence committed in their name.
    It is certainly true that the Catholic Church endorsed and/or orchestrated the genocide of the Crusades, the Inquisition and many wars of colonization and exploitation — with the origins of these atrocities in fundamentalist interpretations of “holy” scripture.
    But I do have to take exception to the blanket condemnation of the entirety of the religion by pointing out one reality — that the original form of Christianity, the church of the first generation after Jesus and even most of the first three centuries was a religion of pacifists, oppressed women, orphans, those forced into prostitution, despised people of all stripes and others of those called “the least.”
    Though this history has long since been forgotten or ignored, the earliest followers of Jesus rejected violence, tried to return good for evil, fed the hungry, did acts of mercy and unconditional love and tried to make friends out of their enemies (by caring for them, feeding them, praying for them and certainly refusing to kill them or pay for somebody else to kill them).
    The practicality of nonviolence was a hugely successful ethical stance to take. It could be described as an act of divine genius. And it made tremendous practical sense. One bit of evidence of the practicality of gospel nonviolence is the fact that in the first couple of centuries, no early Christian male ever acquired combat-induced PTSD or the soul-destruction that always accompanies that reality.
    And no early Christian ever felt depressed, ashamed, guilty or suicidal about killing, plundering or raping innocent unarmed women and children in wartime. The earliest Christians took seriously Jesus’s clear command to love and befriend their enemies, and – despite brutal Roman persecutions – the religion survived; indeed, it thrived.
    In fact, by 300 CE, it had grown into one of the largest religions in the empire, at which point the emperor Constantine (who was a worshipper of the Sun god until his deathbed baptism into the “faith”) co-opted the church by stopping the persecutions and granting it power, property and prestige, thus seducing it into becoming the obedient and increasingly dependent state church whose master was the brutal, often satanic Roman Empire and its army generals.
    Eventually – and logically – church leaders who were now dependent on the largesse and protection of the empire felt obliged to support it and its troops, pay homage to the emperor and send its young Christian men to violently defend the empire’s borders against the fingered enemy. Or homicidally enlarge the empire if it was profitable for Rome or the Papal State to do so.
    St. Augustine wrote the first Christian ‘Just War Theory’ in the late Fourth Century, making legitimate, in certain rare circumstances, killing by Christians in wartime, which had been long forbidden to the followers of Jesus.
    Soon thereafter, Christianity became a religion of justified violence, contrary to the teachings and modelling of Jesus, and it remains that way until this very hour. However, it is generally agreed among Just War scholars that no war in the past 1,700 years has been conducted according to the principles of the Christian Just War Theory; that if the actual principles were applied to an impending war, they would lead Christians back to its original pacifist stance. And so the principles of the CJWT are not taught to the vast majority of Christians.
    So, the blanket condemnation of homicidal religions, especially Christianity, is justified up to the point of acknowledging that the bulk of the Christian church, over the past 17 centuries, has ignored – or become apathetic to – the nonviolent teachings of Jesus (forgiveness 70 X 7, unending mercy, ministering to “the least of these” and the unconditional love of friend and enemy).
    Among the realities that keep the churches silent, of course, are the fear of losing the largesse of state-granted tax-exempt status and the threat that their pro-war, dues-paying members might object or leave if church leaders were to speak out prophetically about the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount and the incompatibility of nationalistic militarism with the life and teachings of Jesus.
    But the Christianity of the first few centuries, when Christians refused to take up the sword, should not be condemned. Rather, critics of Christianity should start challenging the churches to go back to their roots where evil was not allowed to run rampant, but rather was aggressively and courageously resisted using the nonviolent methods of Jesus and his inspired disciples like Tolstoy, Gandhi, Dorothy Day, A. J. Muste, Martin Luther King, the Berrigan brothers, John Dear, Kathy Kelly and a multitude of other courageous prophetic voices.
    The major motivation for the legendary civil disobedience of those modern-day prophets was their commitment to Jesus and the way he lived his life as pacifist (not passive) active resistor to evil.
    The followers of that very real Jesus should be courageously “going to the streets” and saying “NO” wherever and whenever fear and hatred raise their ugly heads and try to provoke violence — no matter if it is coming from the US Congress or the Parliament in London, the Oval Office or # 10 Downing Street, in the Knesset or in the headquarters of Hamas, whether in Tehran or in Baghdad or in the Vatican or in Colorado Springs or in the bowels of the 700 Club – or from within the local parish.
    Jesus of the Gospels was an Nonviolent Leftist and outspoken, who tried to reform his authoritarian conservative, dogmatic church but also refused to shut up with his call for justice for the down-trodden — even when his superiors threatened him with serious consequences if he didn’t.
    The economic model of Jesus’s early church was socialist, where the resources of the group were shared with the widow and orphans and others who didn’t have enough. He would have stood, like the prophet he was, in solidarity with pacifists, socialists, anti-war activists and feminists and surely would have marched in nonviolent anti-war rallies.
    Jesus was definitely NOT a punitive, pro-death penalty, pro-militarism conservative. His power came not from the sword but from the power of love.
    Jesus would surely have condemned his church’s complicity in the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, the enslavement of black Africans and the segregationist, apartheid policies in my own country that were designed by various ruling elites to destroy ethnic or religious minorities.
    And if the leadership of his church had been found guilty of or just complicit with such acts, especially genocide, Jesus would surely have insisted on the formation of an independent truth and reconciliation commission to respectfully hear the testimony of the victims, the survivors and the families of the survivors and allow those victims to face their victimizers. And then Jesus would have insisted upon his church repenting of the sins, whether committed by them or their forefathers.
    The power that Jesus utilized was epitomized by the willingness to do the right thing in the crisis situations even if it involved risks to life or liberty. Fear had no power over him or the martyrs of the early church. His power came out of the holy spirit of love, goodness, mercy and forgiveness and his certainty that, by refusing to do acts of violence, he was doing the will of God.
    The practicality of that radical stance resulted in the healing power that Jesus’ disciples and apostles exhibited when they started implementing what Jesus had taught and modelled for them.
    War and violence emanates from an entirely different spirit than the spirit shown by the early church. That spirit is the spirit of the unholy, the spirit of the satanic, the spirit of Cain, also called ‘sons of Belial’. The willingness to kill was the spirit that was strongly present in such historic figures as Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Eichmann, Stalin, Mussolini (all baptized into pro-war, Constantinian Christian churches).
    That evil spirit was also present in many sabre-rattling militarists throughout history – the most ruthless presidents, Secretaries of Defence, generals, dictators, legislators, gun-running businessmen and trained assassins that have ever lived – from the ancient low-tech, PTSD-afflicted Achilles, who killed up close and personal, looking into the eyes of his victims, to the ultra-modern, high-tech Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines that orchestrate, usually from safe distances, such atrocities as were perpetrated by Christian soldiers against innocent unarmed civilians at Nagasaki, Dresden, My Lai, Baghdad, Tripoli and Fallujah, to name just a few.
    It seems to me that the Christian church must start teaching what Jesus taught about violence – that it is forbidden for those who wish to follow him – or our so-called “Christian” nation won’t be able to stop the deadly suicidal/homicidal cycle of war that has been bankrupting most of the world, both financially and morally, for decades.
    Jesus was absolutely right about the satanic nature of killing. The Golden Rule and his warning about the consequences of living by the sword speaks profound truth. According to just those two teachings, we can say that theologically and spiritually, the high-profile pro-war “Christians” that dominate the news are dead wrong.
    That brand of Christianity definitely deserves condemnation. What has been criticized by Christianity’s detractors as the norm for Christianity is not the Sermon-on-the-Mount Christianity of Jesus but rather the aberrant “Constantinian/Paulinian Christianity,” a religion that espouses an anti-Christic, punitive theology that justifies killing fellow children of God in the name of the one who forbade it 2,000 years ago.
    Church leaders need to repent of their support for (or their silence about) their nation’s state-sponsored terrorism and start acting ethically, as if the Sermon on the Mount mattered.
    The Christian church MUST take the lead in this or be doomed — as doomed as was Germany’s dominant Constantinian Christianity of the first half of the 20th century, whose pro-military, nationalist, racist, xenophobic, domination theology permitted torture, genocide and two brutal world wars that ultimately resulted in the suicide of German Christianity, not to mention the complete destruction of the nation by its provoked enemies.
    One wonders what would have happened if every German and Russian and American church had been a real peace church, as the founder envisioned? The real question is, will we learn the lessons of history, or is it already too late?
    I am humbly
    Rene’ Descartes

  2. Asger Trier Engberg
    January 26th, 2012 at 21:50 | #2

    Well, good points.

    I agree on most, we should never use force unless we are absolutely forced to do so.

    When we are forced to use force, as policemen and other servicemen are, it should always be with the greater good in focus, and focus 100% on persons who wish to harm other, or are professional soldiers.

    Nature, or evil is violent in its basic existence. War is a part of nature. This is the reason we have law; to stop the violence of nature. If we did not have that, we would have more, not less violence.

    Take an example; a very serious criminal behaviour, like a rapist. He has to stopped, if necessarry with violence. If not, many girls will suffer.

    This is why the police has a special priviledge to violence, because they protect the law and the weak.

    This has proved to work since its inception in Babylon, so I support it, and the Abrahamian ideology of love (that Jesus supports) is made in Babylon as well, so there is no contradiction between the two, the supplement each other.

    That is a way to see it 🙂

  1. No trackbacks yet.