1) As I recall, Feldman was a principal author of the Afghan Constitution. When asked to review the draft Constitution in 2005, I warned and in fact was sent to Doha, that if that Constitution was ratified, it was one that designed for the Taliban to be in charge.
2) It was about a 50 page constitution. I noted that the 1st 3 articles nullified everything that followed. The 3 Articles follow:
Article 1 [Islamic Republic]. Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.
3) Article 2 [Religions]. (1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam
Article 3 [Law and Religion]. In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.
4) What this meant, and as I briefed, every time Karzai (sp) violated sharia when supporting U.S. forces against the Taliban, the Taliban would be correct that Karzai was violating the constitution that we wrote.
5) The Taliban identified itself as the I*lamic Movement in Afghanistan. In the U.S., it was the Muslim Brotherhood who claimed leadership of the I*lamic Movement. Who became the national security communities chief advisors on fighting the Taliban (and AQ, and ISIS)?
6) How many Americans were killed/injured post constitutional ratification? FACT: we created Islamic Republics. More than a disgrace, it's criminal. It was also bi-partisan - with voices raising warning silenced and then purged. Same w the Iraqi Constitution (that the US wrote).
7) We lost those wars the moment those consts were ratified. The only question - how long to play out. An Iraqi on the const comm (like Afghani’s) told me the Iraqis wanted a const like the American. They were told the U.S. Constitution was racist and the request was rejected.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's no reason for children under 15 to be jabbed. Yes, it's the uncool position that a treatment that has yet to clear the experimental phase should not be forced on anyone. There are complications as VAERS and other clinical reporting indicates. 1/2 of C19 pts had the jab.
2) Grossly underreported are the massive protests in the EU over the "jab" (because its not a vaccine, its an experimental mRNA agent) rising in the courts arguing that one cannot have informed consent on the treatments because the information is not made available
3) Among the concerns are questions wrt the placenta in pregnant women that the long range testing may resolve - but will not conclude for at least a year. Then there is the issue with cytokine (sp) storms - esp given the off-season escalation among those jabbed.
1) BTW, dialectical processes are intensely nihilistic because Socrates (via Plato) believed one must (dialectically) negate what one knows from the sensible realm to "recollect" (αναμνησισ - anamnesis) what one knows from the time before one was born - in the perfect world.
2) The sensible world of constant change (genesis) v the unchanging realm of the eternally perfect (ousia). Opinion v Knowledge. Belief v Wisdom. Hence, one NEVER learns but simply RECOLLECTS what was known by the soul (ψυχή - soul) in the pre-born realm of the eternally perfect.
3) Also, the dialectic is intensely anti-transcendent and hence organically rejects all notions of a transcendent God. The Greek for soul ψυχή (psyche) brings with it concepts of soul that reject Christian (Jewish, etc) notions of soul in favor of the Greek.
1 0f 21) Marxism is metaphysical in its design, it makes metaphysical claims, declares metaphysics to be dead, and then imposes its metaphysical claims on the population with the demand that they be afforded the status of science.
2)(If you’re unsure about metaphysics, now would be a good time for a refresher.) Marxist claims of science are metaphys. For example, many of the “scientific” claims in support of the C19 lock-down leading to the destruction of wealth & the suspension of civil and constitutional
3) - rights were often contradictory, arbitrary, and wrong - but still imposed through the organs of state power & enforced through mass line narratives. As warned back in March 2020- unconstrainedanalytics.org/narrative-domi…
1) True or not, history looks to “Bloody Sunday” in January 1905 as the beginning of the end of the Romanov Dynasty and Imperial Russia. The Imperial Guard fired on peasants peacefully protesting - lead by an Orthodox priest (who ended up being a police informant).
2) The Tsar’s security opened fire on the crowd - its own citizens in broad daylight. It would not be undone, could not be forgotten. The protest on the Hill, minus Antifa agitators, was peaceful even if a bit raucous. There's video of Capitol Police opening doors for protesters.
3) There is video of Capitol Police mixed in with the protesters and not concerned about personal security - they were at ease in the midst of the protesters around them. (Add clips if you have them) The video of the shooting shows police mixed in with the crowd in control.
1) Follow me on this. Returning to Pompeo making Hamza Yusuf the Trump Admin's "Human Rights Advisor" (thus subordinating US human rights to Islamic law as defined by the MB) in the context of causation . . .
2) . . . and whether intent should be based on a person's actions or should it be based on Oprah-style personal motivation assessments that can never be validated for every player in every event. Is it enough to know that a person did x, y & z, and trainwrecks a, b & c happened?
3) A number of years back I was asked to explain Muslim Brotherhood activity in the U.S. to Congressman Pompeo. He pushed back to such an extent, the people who arranged the dinner were shocked when he walked out. I noted the hostile role that the West Point CTC played . . .
3) Both because the native population of England is English (who tend to be white), and because the UK PC chattering class tends to be uncommonly strident (from a US POV) - always self-assured and smiling - the cultural level negation of Eng nat'l ident creates a stark contrast.
4) Rather than openly attack English identify, which arises from what the Romans called a natio, and the Greeks called an Ethos, they simply convert all ethnic English into "white" and make all customs indicators of racism.
5) The then use the competing cultural values of the hordes of mass-wave immigrants to match up against those "racist" English customs and negate them. Of course, the narrative is rigged so that all defenses of English identify are per se racism.