Evolution of A-albionic Working Hypothesis in History & Founding of A-albionic Research Forum

0 Points

Evolution of A-albionic Working Hypothesis

Author	Comment
LloydMiller	Evolution of A-albionic Working Hypothesis		Lead	[-]
Posts: 599 Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:24 AM	Tags : None Remove this ad Evolution of A-albionic Working Hypothesis: Current Working Hypothesis: "The Overt and Covert Organs of the Vatican and British Empires are Locked in Mortal Combat for Control of the World" Previous A-albionic Working Hypothesis: "The British Empire is the Central Phenomenon of World History Since the Decline of the Vatican" Yes, it is probably time to alter or further refine the A-albionic "Working Hypothesis." Islam can no longer be considered a Social Organism manipulated by the previously identified forces of Western Civilization. The influx of oil revenue may have elevated Islam to an independent Geopolitical Status not seen for several Centuries. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:07 PM. Edited 2 times.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Sun, Feb 22, 2009 11:57 AM	This suggestion seems to miss the point, and is an obvious submission to the protocols of PNAC. I would suggest an hypothesis that investigates the extent the various previously competing elites have formed a, perhaps uneasy, alliance to force global humanity into submission. From this perspective, the Islam thing can be seen as little more than token resistance by one of the previously independent groups to the dominant power insisting on universal hegemony.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 7:12 AM	Ole Dude wrote: This suggestion seems to miss the point, and is an obvious submission to the protocols of PNAC. I would suggest an hypothesis that investigates the extent the various previously competing elites have formed a, perhaps uneasy, alliance to force global humanity into submission. From this perspective, the Islam thing can be seen as little more than token resistance by one of the previously independent groups to the dominant power insisting on universal hegemony. In my view, that would fail to account for the on-going uncompromising conflict between the 2 elites, mis-characterizes Islam which has been dominated for Centuries by Western Imperialism until recently, and postulates a significantly "resisting humanity", of which there is not now and scarcely ever has been any evidence. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Thu, Feb 26, 2009 3:29 AM. Edited 2 times.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude	IRAN AND THE WEST: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 11:53 AM	Margolis paints a different situation in the Middle East than you suggest. http://www.ericmargolis.c...-history-of-violence.aspx IRAN AND THE WEST: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE February 16, 2009 Iran is celebrating the 30th anniversary of its historic Islamic revolution after three decades of siege warfare by the western powers. To understand why relations between Tehran and the West are so bitter, we must understand their historical context. Iran's jagged relations with the West began during World War II. In 1941, the British Empire and Soviet Union jointly invaded and occupied the independent kingdom of Persia, as it was then known. This oil-motivated aggression was every bit as criminal as the German-Soviet occupation of Poland in 1939, but has been blanked out of western history texts. The Allies deposed Iran's ruler, Reza Shah, and installed his weak, pliant son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, on the throne as the latest puppet ruler in the British Empire. But in 1951, a highly popular Iranian democratic leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, became prime minister and promptly nationalized Iran's British-owned oil industry, ordering its profits be used to lift Iran from poverty rather than enriching Britain. The Shah and his entourage of western advisors fled. Two years later, US and British intelligence mounted a coup that overthrew Mossadegh, ending Iran's first democratic government. The Shah was restored to the Peacock Throne. Iran's oil wealth returned to British and, now, US control. Washington and London proclaimed they had won an important victory against `Communism.' Washington and London set about turning Shah Pahlavi into the `gendarme of the Gulf' to protect their oil interests. The Shah quickly blossomed into a megalomaniac, styling himself the `Shah of Shahs,' and `Imperial Light of the Aryans' (Iranians are an ancient Indo-European people), comparing himself to the ancient Persian emperors, Darius and Xerxes. The Shah's relatives and Iran's tiny ruling, western-oriented elite looted the nation, living like pre-Revolution Russian royalty. Wives of the elite flew to Paris to have their hair done for gala parties. The nation's oil revenues went to buy large amounts of US and British arms and build gaudy palaces. The rest of Iran remained mired in abject poverty as the nouveau riche royal court flaunted its wealth. Iran's elite put on European airs and dismissed Islam as a backwards faith of superstitious peasants. In this sense, they much resembled today's so-called `secular' Turks who bitterly oppose Islam. Iranians who objected to the court's lurid ostentation, Iran's status as a Western puppet, or the looting of its oil wealth, were branded Communists or Islamic fanatics. Savak, the vastly powerful security agency, imposed a reign of terror on Iran. American and Israeli experts advised and taught Savak. Real and imagined opponents of the Shah, the Shia clergy, and leftists all fell victim to Savak, whose tortures and brutalities were legendary, even by brutal Mideast standards. Iran and Israel, both hostile to their Arab neighbors, became very close allies, to the fury of deeply religious Iranians and the Shia clergy, which strongly supported the Palestinians. The Shah even negotiated to buy Israeli missiles with nuclear warheads in exchange for a steady supply of oil. Washington offered to sell Iran 26 nuclear reactors. By the late 1970's, the Shah's imperial pretensions, the arrant corruption of his corrupt family, and the elite's scorning of Islam brought Iran to a boil. In 1979, an exiled Shia religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni, returned from exile in France and led a popular revolution that quickly overthrew the hated Shah. The US was caught flat footed by Iran's revolution. It had relied entirely on Savak for political information. Popular fury quickly turned against the Shah's primary supporter, the US. Mobs stormed the US Embassy, taking hostage and bringing the two nations close to war. Shredded CIA documents patiently pieced together by Iranian women showed the amazing extent of CIA's influence over Iran. All CIA's networks were rolled up. Ayatollah Khomeini proclaimed his nation's oil wealth would be devoted to social programs. He called on the US-backed Arab oil states to follow the Koran's teachings and share their wealth with poor Muslims everywhere. He called for the overthrow of other Mideast rulers, whom he damned as illegitimate apostates and western puppets. Washington and London immediately began planning the overthrow of Iran's new revolutionary Islamic government which directly threatened the Anglo-American domination of the Mideast - what I call in my new book , the American Raj. CIA sought to mount a number of military coups. Forty percent of Iran's government leaders were assassinated by the Marxist `People's Mujahidin.' In 1980, when these efforts failed to overthrow the Islamic regime, the US, Britain and their Arab oil clients got another US `gendarme,' - Iraq's Saddam Hussein - to invade Iran. The resulting bloody, eight year Iran-Iraq war cost Iran one million casualties, half of them dead. Iran suffered more dead in this war than the US did in World War II. So violent and desperate was the World War I-style trench fighting that 12-year old Iranian boys and old men went forward to clear Iraqi minefields with their bodies. The US, Britain, and the oil Arabs financed and helped arm Iraq. Israel sold Iran a reported $5 billion in US arms and spare parts. Europe supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, food and arms. After the US Navy entered the war on Iraq's side, Iran was forced to sued for peace. Iran lay in financial and emotional ruins, with an entire generation killed in battle or horribly maimed by Iraq's western-supplied chemical weapons that included the burning agents mustard gas and Lewisite, chlorine, cyanide, and a variety of modern nerve gases. Rightly or wrongly, most Iranians blame the West for their historical suffering. They see the Western powers and Israel continuing efforts to overthrow their government, isolate Iran, and seize its oil. Or even launch a long-awaited air blitz against Iran's so-far civilian nuclear program. A former commander in the Iran-Iraq War, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who led many dangerous missions behind Iraqi lines, is today the president of Iran. While Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei retains the nation's real executive power, the bombastic, anti-western Ahmadinejad speaks for much of Iran's people. President Barack Obama, who says he wants to open serious talks with Iran and establish better relations, will have his work cut out for him. Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 12:45 PM	Admittedly I have read into your words an unstated intention to promote a we vs. them scenario. The article by Margolis suggests that there is a legitimate view of the West as the primary aggressive agent. This would suggest the possibility of Iran especially being subjected to punish the victim rhetoric by our mass media. I am sorry I have failed to visualize an on-going, uncompromising, conflict between 2 elites. Do you see it as ideological, religious, nationalistic, racist, or simply alternative power structures at each others throats. I am inclined to visualize much of the conflict as an outgrowth of top management (elite rulers) standard practice of designing organizations for exception management (conflict management) purposes. Rockefeller forces vs. Morgan forces just does not seem to fit the current character of Geo-politics. Neither does Communism vs. State Capitalism which are almost the same thing in practice. The primary difference of nominal ownership just reflects differences of perception management required. I do not understand your comment about "resisting humanity". Are you saying that there was no reality accompanying the words surrounding the Enlightenment? It seems likely that the Elite perceived it that way as they went about the business of undermining the popular rhetoric of the day. It also seems likely that a real weltanschauung developed among many of the "populists" of the day in which they perceived real progress had been made regarding the human condition. There is a reality which no doubt forced the elite to modify its ways, but did not completely affect the change envisioned by the people. This would suggest that there is and has been an ongoing "battle for the mind" between the two forces that would suggest legitimacy to the postulation of a resisting humanity. This does not suggest that I am naive to an elite view "that the best slaves are the one's who think they are free." Your words suggest that you have thrown in with the elite to aid them in assuring that the slaves continue to incorrectly perceive themselves as free. My view is that we are involved in a battle for awareness of reality. Yours adopts the defeatist attitude that we are, always were, and always will be slaves, and that the best we can do is to fantasize otherwise according to elite specifications.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:40 PM	Margolis' article is simple-mindedly one-sided. First, oil should belong to those who discover and develop and transport it to market. That national resources belong to the "nation" is socialist nonsense. "Democratic" leaders stealing rightful property should be dealt with. . . Iran under the Ayatollahs is a hideous Islamic tyranny. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:44 PM	Ole Dude wrote: From this perspective, the Islam thing can be seen as little more than token resistance by one of the previously independent groups to the dominant power insisting on universal hegemony. With Big Oil / Rockefeller connivance, it appears that the New World Order may be ISLAMIC! Resistance to the New World Order? Why? Increasingly, Islam has the votes to call the tune at the UN and the Rockefeller / Vatican Axis sez OK! George Bernard Shaw and other Fabians saw Islam as an ideal vehicle for their One World Order! The Rockefellers apparently see the Religious Totalitarianism of their Saudi partners as a big plus for their long-sought UN one world rule. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Mon, Feb 23, 2009 10:47 PM. Edited 1 time.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 8:28 AM	Ole Dude wrote: Yours adopts the defeatist attitude that we are, always were, and always will be slaves, and that the best we can do is to fantasize otherwise according to elite specifications. That a manipulative elite or elites exist does not mean that we are slaves. This is an extreme over-statement all too typical in conspiracy land. A more accurate description is that we are robbed via taxation and inflation to an extent and oppressed to a degree by an over-reaching and corrupt governmental system. Slavery, except when the draft raises its ugly head, was abolished. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 8:35 AM	Ole Dude wrote: Admittedly I have read into your words an unstated intention to promote a we vs. them scenario. Civilizations exist independent of the elites currently in power. Yes, I support Western Civilization as opposed to Islamic Civilization. The treasonous (to Western Civilization) Rockefeller-Vatican axis has been conspiring with an enemy Civilization, one for oil, the other to restore a faith-based world and defeat "modernism". . . Margolis too. I have some hope the new Pope has retreated somewhat from John Paul II's treasonous stance. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Tue, Feb 24, 2009 8:38 AM. Edited 1 time.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 8:47 AM	Ole Dude wrote: Are you saying that there was no reality accompanying the words surrounding the Enlightenment? It seems likely that the Elite perceived it that way as they went about the business of undermining the popular rhetoric of the day. It also seems likely that a real weltanschauung developed among many of the "populists" of the day in which they perceived real progress had been made regarding the human condition. The Enlightenment had virtually nothing to do with the people. It was a movement of Elites and was by NO MEANS uniformly democratic and CERTAINLY NOT POPULIST. Frederic the Great believed in the absolute power of Kings and was certainly part of the Enlightenment, a movement PRIMARILY defined by the rejection of religious faith, not liberty for the masses. In America the Enlightenment did flower in limited government. America by no means defined the Enlightenment. The STATIST/COMMUNIST Illuminati was also an expression of the Enlightenment. . . Populism? In the Enlightenment Where? Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 12:38 PM	Remove this ad LloydMiller wrote: Margolis' article is simple-mindedly one-sided. First, oil should belong to those who discover and develop and transport it to market. That national resources belong to the "nation" is socialist nonsense. "Democratic" leaders stealing rightful property should be dealt with. . . Iran under the Ayatollahs is a hideous Islamic tyranny. I do not find Margolis' exposition of the facts as misleading. His tone does reflect a difference in assessment of those facts from your apparent "religious" beliefs. Your perception of who owns the oil is a religious or ideological belief. What or who is to say your ideological belief is better than his (or mine for that matter)? And if I disagree with your view am I to be forever caste into the Hell you have created to contain your conception of socialism? Likewise, your assessment of Iran as a hideous Islamic tyranny is as much a reflection of the tyranny (perception management) that has dominated your presence on the earth as it is the actual tyranny of Islam. That you do not perceive yourself a slave reflects more the success of your rulers' education efforts (perception management) than it does independent objective analysis. I said that Margolis has a legitimate view. I would add that his statement of relevant facts seem accurate and reflective of the situation. I did not say his was the only legitimate view of the facts. I have a tendency to downgrade the legitimacy of views that disregard or ignore the relevant facts. Simply stating one's feeling that something appears hideous with no substantiation does not influence me very much. Again, I find your response lacking in intellectual content. It appears to be more of an extension of one side of the daily garbage available in the mass media.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 1:13 PM	LloydMiller wrote: Ole Dude wrote: Yours adopts the defeatist attitude that we are, always were, and always will be slaves, and that the best we can do is to fantasize otherwise according to elite specifications. That a manipulative elite or elites exist does not mean that we are slaves. This is an extreme over-statement all too typical in conspiracy land. A more accurate description is that we are robbed via taxation and inflation to an extent and oppressed to a degree by an over-reaching and corrupt governmental system. Slavery, except when the draft raises its ugly head, was abolished. You have a very narrow and ideologically driven view of slavery. Perhaps you are unaware of one of the most fundamental principles driving corporate strategy development. Any such strategy should promote an increasing dependence of all interacting groups (customers, suppliers, employees, governments, banks, etc) on the corporation. When fulfilled such dependence equates to slavery regardless of perception management to the contrary.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 1:45 PM	LloydMiller wrote: Frederic the Great believed in the absolute power of Kings and was certainly part of the Enlightenment, a movement PRIMARILY defined by the rejection of religious faith, not liberty for the masses. From wikipedia "Frederick II of Prussia" Unlike many of his contemporaries, Frederick did not believe in the Divine Right of Kings and, disregarding the exaggerated French style of the time, often wore old military uniforms; he merely believed the crown was "a hat that let the rain in". He called himself the "first servant of the state"
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 8:20 PM	Ole Dude wrote: I said that Margolis has a legitimate view. I would add that his statement of relevant facts seem accurate and reflective of the situation. I did not say his was the only legitimate view of the facts. I have a tendency to downgrade the legitimacy of views that disregard or ignore the relevant facts. Margolis' views, I said, were insanely ONE-SIDED! I think is particularly charming when the Ayatollas send a crane to a neighborhood to hang a young teenage girl that has allegedly been sexual with some of the local boys. Pretty. No, Islam is a hilariously simple-minded cut and past job by a militarist bent on world conquest. The Earth will be an extremely ugly place until Islam is eliminated. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 11:10 AM. Edited 2 times.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 11:42 PM	Ole Dude wrote: Your perception of who owns the oil is a religious or ideological belief. What or who is to say your ideological belief is better than his (or mine for that matter)? And if I disagree with your view am I to be forever caste into the Hell you have created to contain your conception of socialism? Yes! Those who cannot recognize the cause and effect aspects of creating wealth are worthless COLLECTIVIST LOOTERS, ie. SOCIALIST Economics is science, not religion. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 11:19 AM. Edited 2 times.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 11:51 PM	Ole Dude wrote: You have a very narrow and ideologically driven view of slavery. Perhaps you are unaware of one of the most fundamental principles driving corporate strategy development. Any such strategy should promote an increasing dependence of all interacting groups (customers, suppliers, employees, governments, banks, etc) on the corporation. When fulfilled such dependence equates to slavery regardless of perception management to the contrary. Nonsesnse. Interdependence results from free, but inequal people trading with each other. Equality of wealth is not a requirement of freedom. Sure, if some players use private or government force or fraud, then there is a certain amount of theft and/or oppression involved in the interdependence. Creating dependence in customers, suppliers, employees, etc. is a valid economic goal for individuals, companies, etc. I thought we dispensed with your "bugaboo" of "Corporations." I have no problem with the Corporate structure as long as force and fraud are not involved. Economic strategies are just fine as far as I am concerned. Chattle slavery is another thing completely: OWNING PEOPLE as property. You are sliding into misuse of terms typical of socialists: employment = slavery, etc. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 11:12 AM. Edited 2 times.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Tue, Feb 24, 2009 11:57 PM	Ole Dude wrote: LloydMiller wrote: Frederic the Great believed in the absolute power of Kings and was certainly part of the Enlightenment, a movement PRIMARILY defined by the rejection of religious faith, not liberty for the masses. From wikipedia "Frederick II of Prussia" Unlike many of his contemporaries, Frederick did not believe in the Divine Right of Kings and, disregarding the exaggerated French style of the time, often wore old military uniforms; he merely believed the crown was "a hat that let the rain in". He called himself the "first servant of the state" Of course, Frederick the Great, as an Englightenment King, did not believe in DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS! As I said, he believed in ABSOLUTE KINGSHIP. And you think calling himself 1st servant of the State mean he didn't support his own absolute power? Most likely, he was an Illuminatus. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 11:20 AM. Edited 1 time.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Wed, Feb 25, 2009 12:10 AM	Ole Dude wrote: Again, I find your response lacking in intellectual content. It appears to be more of an extension of one side of the daily garbage available in the mass media. Oh, because I didn't include an exhaustive treatise on my evaluation of Islam in the post I am lacking in intellectual content? Where is your treatise on "the daily garbage" in the mass media? Hardly self-explanatory since the Rockefeller / Big Oil / Saudi controlled, politically correct mass media promotes Islam as deserving equal respect with more modern religions which have, under Englightenment influence, evolved away from "State Religion" status. In case you haven't noticed, the anti-Islamic NeoConservatives are and were a minority voice in the mass media, now completely shouted down by the Democrat Party pawns of the Rockefeller / Big Oil / Saudi camarilla. Didn't you notice that the mass media is LAUDING Obama's disgusting ASS-Kissing of Islam? Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Wed, Feb 25, 2009 10:06 AM	LloydMiller wrote: Ole Dude wrote: Your perception of who owns the oil is a religious or ideological belief. What or who is to say your ideological belief is better than his (or mine for that matter)? And if I disagree with your view am I to be forever caste into the Hell you have created to contain your conception of socialism? Yes! Those who cannot recognize the cause and effect aspects of creating wealth are worthless COLLECTIVIST LOOTERS, ie. SOCIALIST Economics is science, not religion. Like I overheard a WECO manager tell another in response to "What will we do with the engineers?" while discussing how to deal with the collapsing company situation. "Engineers are a dime a dozen." If you have the wealth, and oil is wealth, technology is available for purchase. I did not realize the extent you have been brainwashed.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Wed, Feb 25, 2009 10:52 AM	LloydMiller wrote: Ole Dude wrote: I said that Margolis has a legitimate view. I would add that his statement of relevant facts seem accurate and reflective of the situation. I did not say his was the only legitimate view of the facts. I have a tendency to downgrade the legitimacy of views that disregard or ignore the relevant facts. Margolis' views, I said, were insanely ONE-SIDED! I think is particularly charming when the Ayatollas send a crane a neighborhood to hang a young teenage girl that has allegedly been sexual with some of the local boys. Pretty. No, Islam is a hilariously simple-minded cut and past job by a militarist bent on world conquest. The Earth will be an extremely ugly place until Islam is eliminated. You will have no difficulty convincing me that I do not want Islam, or anyone else imposing their values onto me, but you will have a hard time convincing me that we have the right to impose our values onto them. That they are defending something I would not want does not mean that Islam is bent on or has any expectation of military world conquest. Consistent with Margolis' words, it is apparent that the primary hegemonic power that IS bent on world conquest is in need of a demonizable target to advance it's evil perception management goals. You are obviously working for their cause. It would seem appropriate, since you see Margolis' view as insanely onesided, that you address each of his points and explain why you see it as you do. You seem so blinded by the misperception of your own morality that you are incapable of intellectually entertaining his points. What gives you the right to impose your morality onto a people that perceive your morality, with some justification, as the work of the great Satin. That Israel finds itself in the unfortunate role of spearpoint of the hegemonic invasion does not mean the Israeli people are evil. More likely it reflects the extent they have been bamboozled into accepting another role as sacrificial victims of the hegemonic power. Your view does not appear that far removed from the fundamentalist promotion of Israel so that all the Jews of the world can be brought together for massacre in the final armageddon between good and evil, as provided for in scripture. Ridiculous!
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 599 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 2:01 AM	Remove this ad Ole Dude wrote: You will have no difficulty convincing me that I do not want Islam, or anyone else imposing their values onto me, but you will have a hard time convincing me that we have the right to impose our values onto them. That they are defending something I would not want does not mean that Islam is bent on or has any expectation of military world conquest. You use "right" in a nonsensical universalist sense above. "Rights" are artificial creations of mankind within a political system. Your use of the word in geopolitics is nonsense. Kill or be killed is the law of geopolitics unless alliances and treaties can be developed to allay or postpone such violence. The Koran DEMANDS world conquest of Muslims and always has. To Muslims, treaties with the infidel are made to be broken. Your statement to the contrary is based on an incredible level of ignorance. Margolis' failure to mention the inherent militancy of Islam shows he is either incredibly ignorant or so consumed by such hatred of the West (like many Leftists) that he has become suicidal. Perhaps when Islam ceases to be taken seriously in Islamic countries things can change. We must await or promote and Islamic "Enlightenment" which means REPUDIATION of their insane faith. Human nature, being what it is, we would expect a toothless Islam to continue much as "religious habits" continue ritualistically via social inertia in the West, post Enlightenment. Weird how so many militant atheists fail to see the differences between the fading cultic fundamentalism of the West and the militant State religion of Islam. In my view, turning to a libertarian values perspective, anyone has the right to over-turn tyranny by force and impose a better system, a system more in the direction of individual liberty. The issue of "prudence" is another matter. Islam is nearly pure filth. Other civilizations are mixed bags and have many aspects of value. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 11:18 AM. Edited 1 time.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

Yuku free message boards

Evolution of A-albionic Working Hypothesis

Evolution of A-albionic Working Hypothesis

Evolution of A-albionic Working Hypothesis: