Are you a
pastor? The Apostle Paul was a great fighter. His fighting was
partly against external enemies—against hardships of all kinds. Five times he
was scourged by the Jews, three times by the Romans; he suffered
shipwreck four times; and was in perils of waters, in perils of robbers,
in perils by his own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the
city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false
brethren. And finally he came to the logical end of such a life, by the
headsman’s axe. It was hardly a peaceful life, but was rather a life of wild
adventure. Lindbergh, I suppose, got a thrill when he hopped off to Paris, and
people are in search of thrills today; but if you wanted a really
unbroken succession of thrills, I think you could hardly do better than try
knocking around the Roman Empire of the first century with the Apostle Paul,
engaged in the unpopular business of turning the world upside down.
Good Fight of Faith, by J. Gresham Machen (1929) (Involves conflict)
much is given – much is required!
If you are new here and wondering what this rant is about – start here – for an introduction.
The items I read today were not totally new to me but they disturbed my
comfort level and normalcy bias to the point that I will speak with my local
bank folks to see what their position is on this and other issues.
As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, if the tens of millions
of Christians actually ACTED as Christians, it would cause a cultural,
economic, political and educational EARTHQUAKE! Our economic effect alone on a
nationwide boycott or similar action would get their attention.
Remember – wise as serpents and harmless as doves! But remember
also – war has been declared upon us – what say we act accordingly!
Several posts on Facebook are asking this
question: Should pastors address politics from the pulpit? I don’t understand why this question
keeps getting asked. If the Bible addresses politics (or anything else), then
pastors must address politics and anything else the Bible addresses. It’s that
became a Christian in 1973. That’s 47 years ago. What do 47 years of preaching
and teaching look like? Let’s say you attended church 50 times each year.
That’s 2250 messages from the pulpit. If you attended Sunday evening services,
that would be another 2250 messages. These numbers don’t count Wednesday
evening, Sunday School, Bible studies, and your own personal study. That’s a
lot of Bible.
Are we to believe that in all the times the
Bible has been preached or taught that the subject of politics should never
come up? How does a minister preach and teach for 45 years and not touch
on the politics found, for example, in Exodus, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2
Kings, the prophets, and the politics of the New Testament (e.g., Matt. 22:21; Acts 16:22-40; 22:22-30; Rom. 13:1-4)?
this from an August 2019 article:
speak on political issues in my church.
take a side on controversial news items when I’m behind the pulpit.
We may not preach on political
issues, but that doesn’t mean we’re sticking our heads in the sand. There are
There’s a court case that could have
large scale consequences for Christian schools and churches. The following is
from the Huffington Post:
Stillwater Christian School in
Kalispell, Montana, says in its handbook that “God
wonderfully and immutably creates each person as male or female” and “God
created marriage to be exclusively the union of one man and one woman.” It also
says that “students and campus visitors must use restrooms, locker rooms, and
changing facilities conforming with their biological sex.”
Because of these beliefs, governments are
weighing whether they should be discriminated against on school choice
legislation. The schools would be denied taxpayer money because of these
beliefs. It’s OK for a state to force families to pay taxes to fund government
schools but it’s supposedly unconstitutional for some of that money to be
returned to these same families to educate their children.
choice is a debatable issue. But I want you to take note how the opposition is
framing the debate. If you oppose homosexuality, the government will declare you
unfit to educate. If a church preaches these biblical truths from the pulpit,
will a government declare them enemies of the State? Will homeschooling
families be subject to new legislation that will force them to teach that
homosexuality and transgenderism are fundamental rights and to disagree might
lead to the removal of children from the home?
attacks are comprehensive:
One Abeka history textbook
previously analyzed by HuffPost, for example, says that Satan hatched “the
ideas of evolution, socialism, Marxist-socialism (communism), progressive
education, and modern psychology.” A Bob Jones University history textbook calls
science a “false religion” and portrays Islam as a violent religion, including
a section titled “Islam and Murder.” Both companies’ textbooks dismiss
evolution in favor of creationism.
Consider what Democrat presidential
candidate Elizabeth Warren wants to do about government education:
I’m going to have a Secretary
of Education that this young trans person interviews on my behalf, and only if
this person believes that our Secretary or Secretary of Education nominee is
absolutely committed to creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment,
and a full educational curriculum for everyone will that person actually be
advanced to be Secretary of Education.
But the pulpit is not the place to address
these issue. Give me a break.
Preachers and teachers are not to
“shrink from declaring the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27). If a topic is in the Bible, then
pastors are obligated to preach on it. R. J. Rushdoony wrote:
What is the relation of clergy
and politics? Should men in the pulpit speak out on social and political
questions, and, if so, under what circumstances? Answer: The clergy cannot
faithfully expound the Word of God without dealing with virtually every social
and political question. The Bible speaks not only
about salvation but about God’s law with respect to the state, money, land,
natural resources, just weights and measures, criminal law, and a variety of
other subjects. The clergy are not to intermeddle in politics, but they must
proclaim the Word of God. There is a difference: political intermeddling is a
concern over partisan issues: preaching should be concerned with Biblical
doctrines irrespective of persons and parties.1
[Paul] was highly indignant
that he, a Roman citizen, had been treated in such fashion by the magistrates,
who had not done their duty properly in the investigation of the case before
them. Paul did not quietly submit to the injustice done to him. In this first-century
case of police brutality, he not only asserted his rights, but also put the
authorities in the humiliating position of having to come to him and apologize.
Paul had these men up against the wall and kept them there, because they could
have gotten into serious trouble for this breach of the law if word of it had
gotten back to Rome, or even to the governor at Thessalonica. (Source)
a great lesson here for Christians. These first-century Christians’ involvement
in politics acted as a protective of every citizen. The involvement and
instruction in politics can go a long way to establish justice for everyone.
People ask why young people are leaving the
church. It’s because they don’t see any real-world relevance. Yes,
when they die they’ll go to heaven, but what do they do until then? God created the world and He
established its boundaries and rules for living in every area of life. The
justice system we have today is largely based on biblical law. Well, it used to
be. The laws that are being overturned today for the most part are laws that
Christians spent centuries implementing. Let’s tell young people about our
history. The late Chuck Colson described the time he spoke to the Texas
I told them that the only answer to the
crime problem is to take nonviolent criminals out of our prisons and make them
pay back their victims with restitution. This is how we can solve the prison
The amazing thing was that afterwards they came up to me one after
another and said things like, “That’s a tremendous idea. Why hasn’t anyone
thought of that?” I had the privilege of saying to them, “Read Exodus 22. It is
only what God said to Moses on Mount Sinai thousands of years ago.”2
If you want to get young people excited
and motivated, teach them the whole purpose of God. Present the history of law
in the world and how it has impacted the civilized world.
only the gospel be preached on Sunday morning? That is, should only the message
of salvation be taught? That would mean at least 4500 messages of the gospel
for 47 years with no discussion of politics, education, and economics? I don’t
writer of the letter to the Hebrews has a different take on the
comprehensiveness of the Bible’s redemptive message:
Concerning [Melchizedek] we
have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have
become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you
have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the
oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone
who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of
righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature,
who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to
maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of
faith toward God (Heb. 5:11-6:1).
Christians need to grow beyond the
elementary principles of the Christian faith. No Christian needs 4500 messages
on “the elementary teaching about the Christ.” If he does, then he is most
likely not a Christian.
pastor wrote, “as a rule pastors, especially those who preach in an expository
(taking a book at a time, chapter at a time, verse at a time) approach, will be
guided by the text. To parachute political talking points into the text is
politics is not in the text, I agree. But who says pastors must always preach
in an expository manner? The New Testament writers didn’t preach or teach that
way. Their letters are not full expositions of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17). They addressed issues that
were confronting various churches with unique problems. The Bible was made contemporary and
above-mentioned pastor goes on to write:
One caveat is this: perhaps a
pastor will do a topical series on key issues of the day and how Christians
should think through them biblically. I’ve done this as a Sunday Night series.
This can be helpful, however, a pastor must be faithful to let the text
speak to the issue and not wedge your
particular political opinion into the text.
just Sunday evening? Why not Sunday morning when most of the congregation is
present? Some might say that there might be visitors. Leave salvation to God.
People come to Christ in the most extraordinary ways. My wife came to Christ
after listening to a prayer. I came to Christ after listing to some bad
teaching on prophecy.
The Kavanaugh and Trump impeachment
hearings could serve as a great opportunity to address the subject of law,
politics, and a whole lot more. It
would make a good sermon series on what the Bible says about jurisprudence.
Such things are a major part of our lives. If pastors don’t preach and teach on
these topics, the people are going to get the information elsewhere.
was put in prison because of the unsubstantiated testimony of one woman and
what looked like a reliable piece of physical evidence – Joseph’s garment that
was left behind as he escaped (Gen. 39:12). She lied, and her political
“privilege” gave her the upper hand.
Biblical justice demands at least two
On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is
to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of
one witness (Deut. 17:6)
A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of
any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three
witnesses a matter shall be confirmed (Deut. 19:15).
But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you,
so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED (Matt. 18:16).
This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE
CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES (2 Cor. 13:1).
Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the
basis of two or three witnesses” (1 Tim. 5:19).
Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two
men is true (Heb. 10:28; also John 8:17).
eye-witness testimony, a confession, evaluation of evidence (Matt. 26:59; Acts 6:13), — physical or otherwise (Joshua 7:20‑21) — reliability of testimonies (Mark 14:55-56), there is little a court of law
can do. Parading supporters before a committee as “character references” or
raucous and threatening protests are not legitimate factors in adjudicating a
case in terms of biblical norms.
The United States Constitution
recognizes the two-witness factor, a point that no Senator
raised: “No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession
in open court” (Art III, Sec. 3).
only our government would apply innocent until proven guilty to something like
civil forfeiture where no witnesses or evidence are needed to confiscate a
R. J. Rushdoony, Roots of Reconstruction, 552. [↩]
Charles Colson, “The Kingdom of God and Human Kingdoms,” Transforming
Our World: A Call to Action, ed. James M. Boice (Portland, OR: Multnomah,
1988), 154-155. [↩]
Wells Fargo and Fifth Third announced this week they will no longer donate to
help poor, minority children attend better Christian schools, because the
banks’ leaders think Christian teachings about sex are bigoted. Last year, the
two corporations donated $5.4 million to Florida’s tax-credit scholarship
program, which assists more than 100,000 children, approximately 70 percent of whom are black, Hispanic, and
“All of us at Wells Fargo
highly value diversity and inclusion, and we oppose discrimination of any
kind,” said a spokeswoman.
percent of the children who participated in this program in 2015-16 had single mothers. Their average family income was
$25,550, near the federal poverty line. Researchers found that “on average, students who choose
the scholarship were struggling academically in their prior public school,” and
that these struggling children bump up their achievement to match that of
richer kids with better schools within several years of joining the program.
The banks ended their support
for the poor minority children after a harassment campaign by the Orlando
Sentinel. The newspaper went after Christian schools in articles accusing
them of hating LGBT people due to religious teachings about sex that are shared
by the majority of the world’s faithful, including Muslims and Jews. Then the
newspaper contacted major donors to the scholarships, including Fifth Third and
Wells Fargo, to pressure them into recanting. It worked.
[Orlando Sentinel] story ran, Fifth Third changed its mind,” the Orlando Sentinel article on the banks’ withdrawal
from the donations says. The banks now say they will not participate in the
program until state lawmakers discriminate against religious schools that
uphold their faiths’ historic sexual ethics.
The Sentinel reviewed documents of more than
1,000 private religious schools that take state scholarships and found 156 have
policies that say gay and transgender students can be denied enrollment or
expelled or that explain the school opposes their sexual orientation or gender
identity on religious grounds.
Those campuses served more than 16 percent of
the students who received tax credit scholarships during the 2018-2019 school
year, records from [scholarship organization] Step Up For Students and the
Florida Department of Education show.
Sentinel first reported on the issue last summer, four other companies,
including Central Florida-based Rosen Hotels & Resorts, Inc., have
The attempt to manipulate the private sector to accomplish what
the state legislature has repeatedly rebuffed has, however, at least partly
backfired. In the middle of this brouhaha, the state’s largest scholarship
organization announced a new $35 million donation from Breakthru Beverage
Florida, a large beverage distributor.
By law, the
scholarship donation pool automatically expands if donations exceed 90
percent of the cap in a given year, and it has frequently hit that ceiling
since its inception 19 years ago. The current cap is $559.1 million, a tiny
fraction of the state’s annual $28 billion expenditure on K-12.
“Private schools that won’t
admit or would discipline gay students harm LGBTQ youngsters who might be
enrolled and others who absorb those bigoted messages,” the Orlando Sentinel
paraphrased from comments by Florida state Rep. Carlos Smith. Smith’s
complaining on Twitter helped get the newspaper to “investigate” poor minority
Christian children receiving a better education than in their former public
schools. “It’s poisoning kids minds,” Smith told the Sentinel. “We should not
be funding these schools.”
Can religious and
science-minded taxpayers halt their contributions to these organizations that
discriminate against their viewpoints and promote hatred of their values? Are
the poor black and brown parents fleeing to Christian schools participating in
their “bigotry”? Or does “tolerance” and “diversity” only ratchet in one
the George W Bush administration it was popular in conspiracy circles to speculate that events might be
orchestrated which would allow the Bush family to complete a coup against the
US Constitution and hold on to power indefinitely.
paranoia and suspicion of government power in the wake of the extraordinary
post-9/11 advancements in Orwellian surveillance programs and unprecedented
military expansionism were perfectly understandable, but predictions that the
younger Bush would not cede power at the end of his second term proved
incorrect. In today’s hysterical Trump-centric political environment we now
see mainstream voices in mainstream outlets openly advancing the same conspiratorial speculations about
the current administration, and those will prove incorrect as well.
What these paranoid presidential prognostications get wrong is not
their extreme suspicion of government, but their assumption that America’s real
power structures require a certain president to be in place in order to advance
depraved totalitarian agendas. As anyone paying attention knows, intense
suspicion of the US government is the only sane position that anyone can
possibly have; the error is in
assuming that there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the same agendas
carry forward from one presidential administration to the next.
dwelling on the fact that Trump departed from the talking points prepared for
him by national security officials so he could act “contrary to official US
policy,” which is to “deter Russian adventurism.” Glad to know even the
president is not permitted to change US policy
In a sense, the conspiracy theories about a
Bush coup were actually correct: the Bush administration didn’t truly
end. All of its imperialist, power-serving agendas remained in place and were
expanded under the apparent oversight of the following administration. The same
thing happened after the Obama administration, and the same thing–whether in
2021 or 2025–will happen after the Trump administration. The disturbing fact of
the matter is that if you ignore election dates and just look at the numbers
and raw data of US government behavior over the years, you can’t really tell
who is president or which political party is in power at any given point in
mechanism which ensures the perpetuation of the same policies from
administration to administration used to be referred to by analysts as the
“deep state”, back before Trump and his supporters hijacked that term and began
using it to essentially mean something like “Democrats and anyone who doesn’t
like Trump”. Originally the term deep
state referred not to one political party, nor to some shadowy
cabal of Illuminati or Satanists or reptilians, but to the simple and
undeniable fact that unelected power structures exist and tend to influence
America’s official elected government. It wasn’t a conspiracy
theory, it was a concept used in political analysis to
describe how US government agencies and plutocrats form loose alliances with
each other and with official Washington to influence government policy and
It is inevitable that such a permanent second government would
exist in the current iteration of the United States, if you think about it.
It’s impossible to have a globe-spanning empire of the sort America now has
without long-term plans spanning years or decades for securing control of world
resources, undermining rivals, securing more compliant allies, and ensuring
military and economic hegemony. If the US were a normal nation which simply
minded its own affairs, a permanent government wouldn’t be necessary. But
because it isn’t, one is.
I very seldom use the term
deep state anymore, because its meaning in mainstream discourse has been
completely corrupted. Now
when I want to point to America’s permanent unelected power structures I
usually use the word
“oligarchy” or “empire”, or simply “establishment”.
is why I haven’t been especially focused on the US presidential race, despite
the Democratic primaries hitting fever pitch intensity. While I believe the
race can be a useful tool for forcing establishment propagandists to expose
themselves (virulent “never Trump” neocon Bret Stephens just came out in support
of Trump if the Democratic nominee is anyone to the left of
Pete Buttigeig, for example), the
result of the 2020 election isn’t going to change a whole hell of a lot.
This might be a bit offensive to both Trump supporters and Sanders
supporters, but it’s true.
I point out that the current administration has been advancing many longstanding agendas of the CIA and
neoconservative war pigs–agendas like military expansionism, imprisoning
Assange, regime change interventionism in Iran and Venezuela, and reigniting
the Cold War–his supporters always come in saying “If he’s working for the establishment
how come the establishment is working so hard to get rid of him, huh?”
Well, for starters, they’re
not. Nobody who can count Senate seats believes Trump will be removed from
office in the current impeachment sideshow, and everyone who understood
Russiagate knew it was going to dead-end at nothing. If they really wanted
Trump gone they wouldn’t be pussyfooting around with a bunch of kayfabe combat
that they know will never hurt him. Obviously he wasn’t the preferred 2016
choice of certain factions within the establishment, but there are mechanisms in place to ensure
that the empire can tick right along with a less-than-ideal president in the
will also hold true if Sanders miraculously makes his way through another
rigged primary, and then through whatever sabotage gets thrown his way in the
general election. Sure he might be able to sign a few somewhat beneficial
executive orders and we probably wouldn’t see him flirting with an Iran war,
but US imperialism will march on more or less unimpeded and
his popular progressive domestic policies would require congress to
successfully implement. At best he’d be a mild reformer who uses the bully
pulpit to help spread awareness while being narrative managed on all sides by
the billionaire media, and any changes he manages to squeak through which
inconvenience the establishment at all will be reversed by a subsequent
anti-government protests happening now in Iran? Russia? Hong Kong?
Obviously the establishment would
rather have someone in the White House who doesn’t constantly put an ugly face on the empire by
accidentally exposing its mechanics all the time as
Trump does, and obviously it would rather have an incompetent oaf like Trump in
office than someone who actively points out the evils of oligarchy and
imperialism like Sanders. But the establishment which runs the
US-centralized empire is not afraid of Trump, and it is not afraid of Sanders.
It’s afraid of you.
The unelected power
establishment has ways of ensuring its dominance amid the comings and goings of
America’s official elected government; they are perfectly capable of dealing
with one man being a less than ideal steward of the empire. What they
absolutely cannot deal with, at all, is the prospect of ordinary people finally
rising up and using the power of their numbers to force real change. That is
what they are really fighting against when they try to sabotage populist
candidates: not the candidates themselves, but populism itself.
You wouldn’t know it from reading the
billionaire media, but the Yellow Vests protests in France are still going on and have remained
widespread for more than a year now. This lack of
coverage is partially due to the fact that establishment narrative
managers are responsible for conveying the idea that
the only governments whose citizens dislike them are those which haven’t been
absorbed into the imperial blob like China and Iran. But it’s also because the
propagandists don’t want us getting any ideas.
The reason the propagandists work so
hard to manufacture the consent of the governed is
because they absolutely do require that consent. If enough people decide that
the status quo isn’t working for them and begin rising up to force it to
change, there’s not really anything the establishment can do to stop them.
Right now the only thing keeping people from rising up in this way is the fact
that they’ve been successfully propagandized not to, and the propagandists
intend to keep it that way.
But eyes are beginning to open. If real change is coming, it will come
from there. Not from electing anyone president, but from a large-scale
awakening to the reality of our situation. The only thing standing in the way
is a thin layer of narrative fluff.
for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you
see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website,
which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work
is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook,
following my antics on Twitter,
checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify,
following me on Steemit,
throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing
some of my sweet merchandise,
buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am,
where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to
republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any
way they like free of charge.
© Caitlin Johnstone
The international conference about
Libya in Berlin on January 19 was a success, in that the parties agreed to a
meaningful set of conclusions and
recommendations that appear to have a reasonable chance of at least limiting
conflict and halting further expansion of Islamic State in the region. One reason for tepid reaction and
lack of enthusiasm about the outcome on the part of the Western mainstream
media was that participants included Presidents Putin and Erdogan, both of whom
were influential in pursuing compromise and moderation in the path to peace in
the violence-stricken country whose Western-inspired destruction began in 2011.
countries and four international organisations were represented in Berlin, and
it is notable that the event was hosted by Angela Merkel who, as with
Presidents Putin and Erdogan, had refused to join in the jolly U.S.-sponsored
blitzkrieg that wrecked Libya, and
even more notable that NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg wasn’t invited
to attend. It was no doubt borne in mind that nine NATO countries conducted a
total of 5488 airstrikes on
Libya between 19 March and 31 October 2011, while cruise missiles were fired by
the U.S. (228) and the UK (18).
was said in Berlin about the responsibility of the U.S.-NATO alliance (and
other culprits including, amazingly, Sweden) for reducing Libya to the utter
chaos in which it now exists. As observed at the meeting,
“The conflict in Libya, the instability in the country, the external
interferences, the institutional divisions, the proliferation of a vast amount
of unchecked weapons and the economy of predation continue to be a threat to
international peace and security” and attendees committed “to refraining from
interference in the armed conflict or in the internal affairs of Libya and urge
all international actors to do the same.”
It is regrettable, to put it mildly, that
NATO’s U.S., UK, France and Italy, all of which were represented in Berlin, had
not in 2011 “refrained from interference” in Libya, and the western media
refrained from making the slightest mention of their culpability with, for
example, the Washington Post recording lamely that
Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi “was toppled and killed by rebels during the
2011 Arab Spring uprisings and NATO intervention.”
word ‘intervention’ is defined in the
Cambridge Dictionary as “action taken to intentionally become involved in a
difficult situation in order to improve it or prevent it from getting worse”
and this certainly is not what the U.S.-NATO military alliance accomplished in
its seven months of bombing and rocketing all over the country. There was no
improvement whatever to the situation in Libya, and the U.S.-NATO blitz led
directly to its collapse in ruin and vicious civil war.
Although the heads of government of Germany, Russia, the UK, Turkey,
Italy and France were at the Berlin Summit, Washington’s Trump was conspicuous
by his absence which was probably just as well, because nobody knows where he
stands as regards the Libya debacle. Last April, as reported by the New
York Times, he “abruptly reversed American policy toward Libya, issuing a
statement publicly endorsing an aspiring strongman in his battle to depose the
United Nations-backed government.” Trump’s ‘strongman’ is the self-styled
“Marshal” Khalifa Haftar, a former CIA asset, who is still waging war to
overthrow the admittedly incompetent government of Prime Minister Fayez
It was lunacy on the part of
Trump to telephone the rebel leader and tell him, as stated by the White
House, that he “recognized Field Marshal Haftar’s significant role in fighting
terrorism and securing Libya’s oil resources, and the two discussed a shared vision
for Libya’s transition to a stable, democratic political system”. This was
directly contrary to the stance of Secretary of State Pompeo (who was in Berlin
and said nothing of note) in that he had strongly criticised Haftar’s
It all comes down to oil and
profits, of course, so far as western interest in Libya is concerned, and
it should be borne in mind that in March 2004, when UK Prime Minister Blair
paid a visit to President Gaddafi, it was reported that
“Shell today marked its return to Libya after an absence of more than a decade
by signing a $200 million gas exploration deal with the former pariah state.”
Libya has the world’s ninth largest oil reserves, and the U.S. companies
ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil Corporation and the Hess Company were
already heavily involved in exploiting its deposits.
The country was thriving
under the despot Gaddafi, who was certainly ruthless and persecuted his enemies
most savagely — but life for most Libyans was comfortable and even the
BBC had to admit that
Gaddafi’s “particular form of socialism does provide free education, healthcare
and subsidized housing and transport,” although “wages are extremely low and the
wealth of the state and profits from foreign investments have only benefited a
narrow elite” (which doesn’t happen anywhere else, of course). The CIA World Factbook noted that Gaddafi’s Libya had a literacy
rate of 94.2%, by far the best in Africa (and better than Malaysia, Mexico and
Saudi Arabia), and the World Health Organization recorded a life expectancy of 72.3 years,
among the highest in the developing world.
But then Gaddafi made the mistake that cost him his country and his
On January 21, 2011 Reuters reported that “Muammar Gaddafi said
his country and other oil exporters were looking into nationalizing foreign
firms due to low oil prices.” He suggested that “oil should be owned by the
State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or
decrease in production.” His fate was sealed and his country was set on the
road to chaos by a rebellion supported by NATO’s Operation Unified Protector, after which NATO
proudly announced that
“After seven months of operations at sea and in the air NATO has ended its
mission for Libya. The Alliance’s job to protect civilians from the threat of
attack is done. On his historic first visit on 31 October to the Libyan capital
of Tripoli, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was proud of
the part the Organization and its partners played in helping the country and the
Rasmussen was joined in happy
satisfaction by Ivo Daalder, U.S. Representative on the NATO Council from 2009
to 2013, and Admiral James G (‘Zorba’) Stavridis, U.S. Supreme Allied Commander
Europe (the military commander of NATO) in the same period. After their war
these two ninnies had a piece published in
the New York Times in which they made the absurd claim that “the alliance and
its partners can look back at an extraordinary job, well done. Most of all,
they can see in the gratitude of the Libyan people that the use of limited
force — precisely applied — can affect real, positive political change.”
Tell that to those who gathered at the Berlin conference to try to find
a way forward from the tragic catastrophe created by these dimwits.
The way ahead is for the UN
Security Council to endorse the Berlin ‘Follow-Up’ recommendations,
especially noting that the
conference was “one important step in a broader Libyan-led and Libyan-owned
process designed to bring a decisive end to the Libyan crisis by addressing in
a comprehensive manner the underlying drivers of the conflict.” The main thing
is to keep NATO and Trump out of it and help Libya towards stability by
pressuring Haftar and supporting moves to democratic government.
The views of individual
contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
British and Australian armies’ veteran, former deputy head of the
UN military mission in Kashmir and Australian defense attaché in
Copyright © Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with
reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.