“The so-called 'Left-Hand Path' - that of Kaulas, Siddhas and Viras - combines the... Tantric worldview with a doctrine of the Ɯbermensch which would put Nietzsche to shame... The Vira - which is to say: the 'heroic' man of Tantrism - seeks to sever all bonds, to overcome all duality between good and evil, honor and shame, virtue and guilt. Tantrism is the supreme path of the absolute absence of law - of shvecchacarÄ«, a word meaning 'he whose law is his own will'." ― Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar.

“It is necessary to have “watchers” at hand who will bear witness to the values of Tradition in ever more uncompromising and firm ways, as the anti-traditional forces grow in strength. Even though these values cannot be achieved, it does not mean that they amount to mere “ideas.” These are measures…. Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and anti-historical; we know that this is an alibi for their defeat. Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins.” ― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga.

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who died at his post during the eruption of Vesuvius because someone forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one that can not be taken from a man.” ― Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

A Letter on Saddam Hussein

This is another letter I just sent to my friend's private email group, basically backing him up against a handful regurgitating debunked arguments for US intervention in Iraq vs. Saddam Hussein:

Saddam Hussein brought Iraq into the 20th century, created an economic infrastructure, brought in "modern" technology, medicine, etc. and developed a national educational system that drastically increased general literacy in Iraq for adults and children.

Although he had stylistic similarities to Stalin, I see him in terms of his actual achievements more similar to Mussolini, and I think he came into conflict with the "Far West" (mostly the Anglo-American sphere) on much of the same terms as Mussolini and Hitler.

Somewhere there is an actual quote from Churchill to the effect that Hitler's first crime was against the international financial system, by opting out of the international finance networks conducting international trade directly in quantity in bartered materials, and becoming as domestically self-sufficient as possible. There are weird examples of this, such as American gas stations offering free Honer Harmonicas made in Germany for buying a specified amount of gasoline because they came in part of international materials bartering for petroleum with Germany. Hitler was establishing National autonomy that would not be subjected to international financial manipulation or pressures, much like Mussolini had already done in Italy. When the League of Nations enacted trade embargoes against Italy in retaliation for Italy's invasion of Abyssinia/Ethiopia it had little effect in Italy - Mussolini had developed the infrastructure to the point of National self-sufficiency that the embargoes had no substantial effect. Sound familiar with Saddam? If you look up "autarky" on wikipedia it includes a list of just about everyone the USA has considered a villian and gone to war with at some point or another. Apparently if a small state aims toward self-reliance refusing to be milked dry by the usual trans-national financial parasite institutions and networks they get moved to the top of the hit list.

Saddam stopped playing lapdog to the USA, who had been manipulating Iraq and Iran against each other for decades, probably to ensure regional instability in favor of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saddam was and always had been a more "secular" albeit nominally Muslim leader. Anyone who followed information on Al Qaeda or Saddam before 9/11 was aware their relationship was one of overt hostility - al qaeda making several assassination attempts against Saddam and there was an ongoing bloody "shadow war" between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda (as well as other radicalized Islamic groups) for years. The USA didn't invade Iraq because of connections with Al Qaeda, WMDs, or to "Free" the "people" of Iraq any more than they went to war with Hitler to "save" the Jews. There were a number of things bringing the relationship with Saddam to breaking point with the USA - he was on the verge of pegging petroleum to the EURO instead of the Dollar, and other things - basically not being a lapdog, which is unforgivable. That and his bellicose swaggering, lobbing SCUDs at Israel during "Desert Storm" etc.

The so-called "liberation" of Iraq is a train wreck, probably worse than the so-called "liberation" of Italy from Mussolini. Whatever anyone may say against Mussolini, he was a successful and popular leader for over a decade before Hitler even came into power, had he allied with Engand instead of Hitler he probably would have been in power as long or longer than Franco. Mussolini also essentially eliminated the Mafia and Mafia-controlled judges, politicians etc. until they were put back in place after the "liberation" by the USA who collaborated with them in the invasion in the first place. What kind of political stability or integrity has Italy had since Mussolini? Its corruption is the comical section of international news.

The invasion of Iraq by the USA was self-serving only made worse by its own incompetence. Even if a traditional society wanted USA-style free-market "democracy" - which it probably doesn't - democracy requires a middle class, which requires an economic infrastructure, which requires security - which in a country with sharp religious or ethnic divisions can only be maintained by a strongarm leader - which is in such cases better for everyone insofar as he is capable of actually enforcing punishment if they kill each other. The US re-construction of Iraq was a bad joke - you have people without homes, electricity, or running water, much less businesses and any kind of 'status quo' to maintain - being ushered into "voting" for pre-selected and controlled candidates that can't set foot into an open street without being assassinated.

Ironically, if someone wants to argue that the real enemy of the USA was the Afghani Taliban, the best ally the USA could have had against the Taliban was Iran. The USA media maintains the constant portrait of Iran as dangerous paranoid Muslim religious fanatics on the verge of having nuclear weapons, as if Israel and Saudi Arabia aren't dangerous paranoid religious fanatics with nuclear weapons.

Of course Oil is a huge factor in all of this, but it is also worth looking at the opium export of Afghanistan, which is huge. Opium was largely suppressed by the Taliban, since the USA invasion opium production has increased over 200% if I have my numbers right.

The world runs on oil, weapons, and narcotics. Cash is just the wrapping-paper. At least historically Dictators usually know how to fix something they have broken, or at least how to establish order after the fact. What we have is just more mindless short-sighted profiteering disguised as idealistic nonsense leaving disaster and chaos in its wake.

Business as usual.



EsoMan said...

Churchill: "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit." (Spoken to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in the Foreword, 2nd Ed. Sydney Rogerson, 'Propaganda in the Next War' 2001, dated 1938.)

JDS said...

Excellent! THANK YOU.