Malcolm X about race, crime and police brutality: ‘You can’t be a Negro in America and not have a criminal record’

Date: 18 June 2020

Source

Author: lecridespeuples


Malcolm X Speech in Los Angeles on May 22, 1962

On April 27th 1962, two LAPD police officers instructed to closely monitor a mosque’s activities (Muslim Temple 27 in Los Angeles) saw Black men taking clothes out of the back of a car outside the mosque. They approached aggressively and soon got violent, and as Malcolm X puts it, “hell broke loose”. The situation ended with seven unarmed Black Muslims shot outside the mosque. Nation of Islam (NOI) member William X Rogers was shot in the back and paralyzed for life. Temple Secretary Ronald X Stokes, 29, was killed. “They’re going to pay for it”, Malcolm X declared, going to Los Angeles to eulogize Stokes at a funeral attended by 2,000 people. Despite an autopsy that established Stokes was shot at close range and had been stomped, kicked and bludgeoned while dead or dying, an all-White coroner’s jury deliberating the Stokes’ killing, took 23 minutes to conclude it “justifiable homicide.” By contrast, 14 NOI members were indicted for assault in the incident and 11 were found guilty. Elijah Muhammad’s reluctance to aggressively retaliate to Stokes’ death and refusal to work with civil rights organizations, local Black politicians and religious groups, would be the first of a series of events, causing irreparable rifts between The Honorable Malcolm X and the so-called ‘Messenger of Allah’ Elijah Muhammad. And lead to his eventual departure from the Nation of Islam and embrace of traditional, Sunni Islam.

Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJw2ip7TD94

Transcript:

In the name of Allah,  the beneficent, the merciful to whom all praise is due, whom we forever thank for giving us the honorable Elijah Mohammad as our leader, teacher, and guide. And I specifically, ladies and gentleman, and brothers and sisters, open up like that because I  am a representative of the honorable Elijah Mohammad. And were it not for him, you and I wouldn’t be here today.

In order for you and me to devise some kind of method or strategy to offset some of the events or the repetition of the events that have taken place here in Los Angeles recently, we have to go to the root. We have to go to the cause. Dealing with the condition itself is not enough. We have to get to the cause of it all. (crowd concurs) Or the root of it all. And it is because of our effort toward getting straight to the root that people oft times think  we’re dealing in hate.

But first I would like to congratulate and give praise to the Negro, so-called negro leaders and so-called negro organizations and, excuse me if I say so-called, it’s hard for me to just outright say Negro when I know what that word Negro really means. (thunderous applause)

The person whom you have come to know as Ronald Stokes, we know him as Brother Ron – one of the most religious persons to display the highest form of morals of any Black person  anywhere on this Earth. And as one of the previous speakers pointed out, who knew him, everyone who knew him had to give him credit for being a good man. A clean man, an intelligent man, and an innocent man when he was murdered.

The Negro, so-called Negro, organizations and leaders should be given great credit for their failure or refusal to let the White man divide them and use them, one against the other, during this crisis. (thunderous applause) As Reverend [Walkard] Wilson pointed out, I think it was eight years ago today that the Supreme Court handed down the desegregation decision. And despite the fact that eight years have gone past, that decision hasn’t been implemented yet. (applause from audience)

I don’t have that much faith. I don’t have that much confidence. I don’t have that much patience. And I don’t have that much ignorance to… (thunderous applause) If the Supreme Court, which is the highest lawmaking body in the country, can pass a decision that can’t get even eight percent compliance within eight years, because it’s for Black people, then my patience has run out. (applause)

When Black people who are being oppressed become impatient, they say that’s emotional. (murmuring) Please… When Black people who are being deprived of their citizenship… not only of their civil rights, but their human rights, become impatient, become fed up, don’t wanna wait any longer, then they say that’s emotional. (laughter and applause)

The Negro, so-called Negro, leaders and organizations should be praised. They should be congratulated. They should be complimented because out of all of them combined, the White man has not yet found one who will play the role of Uncle Tom. (thunderous applause) But yet he has found no Tom, no puppet, no parrot, who is still dumb enough in 1962 to represent the injustices that he is inflicting against our people. (applause)

We don’t care what your religion is. We don’t care what organization you belong to. We don’t care how far in school you went or didn’t go. We don’t care what kind of job you have. We have to give you credit for shocking the White man by not letting him divide you  and use you one against the other. (applause)

In the past, the greatest weapon the White man has had has been his ability to divide and conquer. As Jackie Robinson pointed out beautifully on the television last night, 4/5 of the world isn’t White. Isn’t that what Jackie said? (applause) And if 4/5 of the world is dark, how is it possible for 1/5 to rule, oppress, exploit, dominate, and brutalize the 4/5 who are in the majority? How did they do it? Divide and conquer.

If I take my hand and slap you, you don’t even feel it. It might sting you, because these digits are separated. But all I have to do to put you back in your place is bring those digits together. (applause) This is what the White man has done to you and me. He has divided us, and used us one against the other. But today, thanks to Allah… You can say thanks to God, or thanks to Jesus, or thanks to Jehovah – whatever you want. (applause) But as a follower of the honorable Elijah Muhammad, we have been taught to say thanks to Allah. And that’s what Jesus said. Jesus called on Allah. He said, “Allah! Allah! Allah [Inaudible]” I believe what’s good for Jesus is good for you. If Allah was good enough for Jesus to call upon, I think He should be good enough for you to call upon. (man: That’s right!)

Since the so-called Negro community has shocked the White man by resisting all efforts to divide us, I think that you and I should continue to shock him by singing and working together in unity. Despite religious, political, economic, or educational, or social differences, let us remember that we are not brutalized because we’re Baptists. We’re not brutalized  because we’re Methodists. We’re not brutalized because we’re Muslims. We’re not brutalized because we’re Catholics. We’re brutalized because because we are Black people in America. (applause)

Here your mother is being raped, and you’re not supposed to be emotional. Your women – please – your woman can’t walk the street without some cracker putting his hands on her, and you’re not supposed to be emotional! (applause) If you say that you’re fed up, if you teach the Negro… (film skips)

They don’t even know their own name (woman: That’s right!) Why? Because he took took it away from her. Please, please. 20 million Black people don’t even know their own language. Why? Because he took it away from us. 20 million Black people who don’t even know the history of their ancestors. Why? Because he took it away from us! And if you try and tell them how thoroughly and completely they’ve been robbed, he says you’re teaching hate. (applause) That’s something to think about. (murmuring)

Today we’re coming out of college, you’re coming out of the leading universities. You’re trying to go in a good direction. But you don’t know which direction to go in. And if somebody tries to take you right to the root of your problem they say that that man’s a hate teacher. If I ask why should the Senators in Washington… and, then again, if we tell you that Negroes are being hung on the tree, or being shot down illegally, unjustly… and those Negroes should do something to protect themselves, you say you’re advocating violence.

The White man is tricking you! He’s trapping you. He doesn’t call it violence when he lands troops in South Vietnam. (applause) Please, please, please! He doesn’t call it violence when he lands troops in Berlin. When the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, he didn’t say get non-violent. He said, “Praise the Lord, but pass the ammunition.” (applause) But when someone attacks you, when someone comes at you with a club, when someone comes you with a rope, when someone comes at you with a gun, despite the fact that you’ve done nothing he tells you, “Suffer peacefully.” (murmuring) “Pray for those who use you to spite me.” “Be long suffering.” And how long can you suffer after suffering for 400 years? (applause)

So I just wanna play up that little point right there because he said that we play on your emotions. And when you turn on your television tonight, or your radio, or read the newspaper, they’re gonna tell you in that paper that I was playing on your emotions. Imagine you, a second class citizen. That’s not getting emotional! It’s getting intelligent.

And as far as your mayor is concerned, I see… (I) should say their mayor. A man named Yorty, who has been slandering the Muslims, a professional liar… a professional liar. (applause) Who has mastered the art of using half truths. Put in the paper that they break into our religious place of worship and got records that they can use to prove that most of us have criminal records. You can’t be a Negro in America and not have a criminal record. (thunderous applause) Martin Luther King has been to jail. (applause) Please. James Farmer has been to jail. Why, you can’t name a Black man in this country who was sick and tired of the hell that he’s catching who hasn’t been to jail. Charged him with being seditious.

They put Moses in jail! (woman: Yeah!) They put Daniel in jail. (woman: Yeah!) Why, you haven’t got a man of God in the Bible that wasn’t put to jail when they started speaking up against  exploitation and oppression. (applause) They charged Jesus with sedition. Didn’t they do that? (crowd concurs) They said he was against Caesar. They said he was discriminating  because he told his disciples, “Go not the way of the gentiles, but rather go to the lost sheep.” He discriminated! Don’t go near the gentiles, go to the lost sheep. Go to the oppressed. Go the downtrodden. Go to the exploited. Go the people who don’t know who they are, who are lost from the knowledge of themselves and who are strangers in a land that is not theirs. Go to those people! Go to the slaves. Go the second class citizens. Go to the ones who are suffering the brunt of Caesar’s brutality.

And if Jesus were here in America today, he wouldn’t be going to the White man. The White man is the oppressor! He would be going to the oppressed. He would be going to the humble. He would be going to the lowly. He would be going to the rejected and the despised. He would be going to the so-called American Negro. (applause)

To have once been a criminal is no disgrace. To remain a criminal is the disgrace. I formally was a criminal. I formally was in prison. I’m not ashamed of that. You never can use that over my head. And he’s using the wrong stick! I don’t feel that stick. (laughter and applause) I went to a prison because I believed in men like Sam Yorty. I went to prison because I  trusted men like Sam Yorty. I went to prison following the philosophy of men like Sam Yorty. But since I’ve been following the honorable Elijah Muhammad, I have been reformed  and that’s more… Please… That’s more than Sam Yorty and Chief Parker and all these other White politicians that have been able to do with the inmates in the prisons of this State. They should give Mr. Muhammad credit. They should give Mr. Muhammad credit for reforming and rehabilitating men whom they have failed to reform and rehabilitate. (thunderous applause)

Mayor Yorty went forward to some press report that Mr. Muhammad had once been found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He failed to explain, purposely, that in 1934, the honorable Elijah Muhammad refused to send his children to White schools in Detroit, Michigan, that were teaching you about Little Black Sambo. That’s the minor that he contributed to the delinquency of. You see this vicious, fork-tongue  White man has been able to take lies and make you turn against those who want to help you and make others turn against you. This is the contributing to the delinquency of a minor that this mayor, or a man who calls himself mayor, is talking about.

Helen Bannerman - Little Black Sambo (1965, Vinyl) | Discogs

In the same article he said that the Muslims are the same people who rioted in the United Nations. Someone should pull his coat and let him know that at the present moment there’s six million dollars worth of suits [inaudible] levelled against two of New York’s leading newspapers  for making a mistake of charging the Muslims as being involved in those United Nations riots. We were not involved! And if this fork-tongued man who calls himself your mayor had taken the time to find that out, he wouldn’t be walking into the trap that he’s letting his ignorance lead him into! (applause) And if you take the time to read the Washington Post that came out the Sunday after that incident took place, the Washington Post pointed out on the front page that the Muslims had nothing to do with the UN riots and they quoted, in saying so, the person who was at that time the Commissioner of Police in New York City. See, it’s lies that the White man has spread about the Muslims to try and make you afraid of the Muslims, or to try and make you think that the Muslims were a criminal element, an uncouth element in things that you have not liked to be associated with.

Also, they say that… I’m just clearing these things up and then we’re going to get into what happened. They also say that the honorable Elijah Muhammad was draft dodger. No, he wasn’t. He just refused to go to the army because he was a man of peace. He was a minister of a religion of peace. He was teaching peace. So he outright refused to go to the army. That’s not draft dodging. That’s intelligence. (cheering)

Here, before the grand jury, because the coroner’s jury is stacked against Negros. (cheers and applause) The Grand Jury is stacked against Negros. The press, the radio, the television and the newspapers are stacked against negros. (crowd concurs) But, please, the Los Angeles Police department is stacked against all Negroes, all except those he has appointed to high positions.

The controlled press, the White press inflames the White public against Negroes. The police are able to use it to paint the Negro community as a criminal element. The police are able to use the press to make the White public think that 90%, or 99%, of the Negroes in the Negro community are criminals. And once the White public is convinced that most of the Negro community is a criminal element, then this automatically paves the way for the police to move into the Negro  community, exercising Gestapo tactics stopping any Black man who is in this… on the sidewalk, whether he is guilty or whether he is innocent. Whether he is well dressed or whether he is poorly dressed. Whether he is educated or whether he is dumb. Whether he’s a Christian or whether he’s a Muslim. As long as he is Black and a member of the Negro community, the White public thinks that the White policeman is justified in going in there and trampling on that man’s civil rights and on that man’s human rights. (applause)

Once the police have convinced the White public that the so-called Negro community is a criminal element, they can go in and question, brutalize, murder, unarmed innocent Negroes and the White public is gullible enough to back them up. This makes the Negro community a police state. This makes the negro neighborhood a police state. It’s the most heavily patrolled. It has more police in it than any other neighborhood, yet it has more crime in it than any other neighborhood. How can you have more cops and more crime? (laughter) It shows you that the cops must be in cahoots with the criminals. (laughter, applause)

(They hate) the texture of the hair that God… Please… That God gave them so much that they put lye on it.  (laughter) Do you realise… now, you know brother; lye will eat a hole in steel and you know your head is not that hard. (applause) Who taught you… Please. Who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin to such extent that you bleach to get like the White man? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself from the top of your head to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate the race that you belong to? So much so that you don’t want to be around each other. You know, before you come asking Mr. Muhammed does he teach hate? You should ask who, yourself, who taught you to hate being what God gave you. (applause)

malcolm x conk
Malcolm X’s ‘conk’ during his delinquent youth, when he was nicknamed ‘Detroit Red’. Here is how he tells it in his Autobiography: « How ridiculous I was! Stupid enough to stand there simply lost in admiration of my hair nowlooking “white,” reflected in the mirror in Shorty’s room. I vowed that I’d never again be without a conk, and I never was for many years. This was my first really big step toward self-degradation: when I endured all of that pain, literally burning my flesh to have it look like a white man’s hair. I had joined that multitude of Negro men and women in America who are brainwashed into believing that the black people are”inferior”-and white people”superior”- that they will even violate and mutilate their God-createdbodies to try to look “pretty” by white standards. »

We teach you to love the hair that God gave you. Here you, way out in the middle of the ocean, can’t swim and you worried about someone that’s in the bathtub and can’t swim. (laughter and applause) We don’t steal. We don’t gamble. We don’t lie, and we don’t cheat. And that also deprives the government of revenue (laughter) because you can’t get into a whiskey bottle without getting past the government seal. You can’t open a deck of cards without getting past the government seal. Hell, the White man makes the whiskey then puts you in jail for getting drunk. (cheering) He sells you the cards and the dice and puts you in jail when he catches you using ’em. So, he’s against us because we fix it where he can’t catch you anymore. We take the dice outta your hands and the cards out of your hands and the whiskey out of your head.

The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman. The most unprotected person in America is the Black woman. The most neglected person in America is the Black woman. And as Muslims, the honorable Elijah Mohammad teaches us to respect our women and to protect our women. And the only time a Muslim really gets real violent is when someone goes to molest his woman. (man: Right!) (applause) We will kill you for our woman. I’m making it plain. Yes. We will kill you for our woman. (applause) We believe that if the White man will do whatever is necessary to see that his woman gets respect and protection then you and I will never be recognised as men until we stand up like men and place the same penalty over the head of anyone who puts his filthy hands in the direction of our women. (thunderous applause)

We respect them, but we want them to respect us. We think that the law should respect the Negro community. The law should protect the Negro community. The law should approach the negro community with intelligence if it expects the negro community to react intelligently. So, the honorable Elijah Mohammed teaches us to always avoid anything that smacks of disrespect for the law. And if the police department tells the truth, they will have to admit that they have never had any, uh, experiences with Muslims that have ever been anything other than honorable unless they themselves come at us in a dishonorable way.

There’s no case against the Muslims. It has no case against these brothers whom they shot down. And because it has no case, it’s trying to create a case. It’s trying to manufacture a case. And therefore they set up a grand jury hearing of the case so that they could hear it behind closed doors, and after hearing what we have to say then they’ll… their particular strategy or defense against the actions that they committed on that April the 27th. So, at the advice of our attorneys, we purposefully, the victims, those who have been indicted, or rather those who have been arrested and are out on bond, have purposefully refrained and refused from making any statement whatsoever until after the case appears in court.

And when you hear their story it will be in a public trial. We have already been… had experience with these private hearings behind closed doors. Anything that the White man has to do to the Muslim, he has to do it in the open. He has to do it in public, or he has to put every single one of us behind bars for the rest our our lives. (applause)

When Mayor Yorty called for a government investigation of a religious group that have the highest moral standards of any group in the Negro community, Mayor Yorty was giving you an example of what Hitler did in Nazi Germany when he began to go on the rampage. (applause)

We feel, we have confidence that  the White public and the Black public, if they hear our case, if they hear and have access to the investigation, will never be fooled by this phony set up that’s stacked from the top all the way down. And if you doubt it, when you leave home tonight, when you go home tonight, look for the press. I’d like at this time to call forth these brothers who are under, uh, who were arrested. The brothers who were arrested. Come up here behind these chairs, please. (applause) They were suspects. (laughter) This wouldn’t happen in a White neighborhood. White man can walk down the street with packages on his head, packages under his arm and packages anywhere else and won’t anybody question his right to carry those packages. But a negro is suspect because the press makes you suspect. Yes, the White press makes Negroes suspect. (murmuring) (video skips)

… all the information you need, Officer. And the Officer made one stay at the rear of the car and the other go to the front of the car, and while he was taking the one to the front of the car, the polite attitude, the humble if, the submissive, intelligent peaceful spirit that he uexpectedly found in this Negro infuriated him. And he began to… He told the brother; ‘Put down your hands.’ Brother was talking, he’s not a criminal. A man has a right on the sidewalk to talk with his hands. ‘Put down your hands, don’t talk with your hands.’ And when the brother continued to gesture with his hands the Officer grabbed his hand, twisted it around, ’round behind his back flung him up against the car and then that’s when hell broke loose. That was when hell broke loose. A struggle ensued, shots were fired by the police and by a Negro door checker. (laughter)

An alarm went out. When the alarm went out, instead of the police going to the place where the incident occurred, the police went one block away to the temple. When they arrived there, they got out of their cars with their guns smokin’. You woulda thought it was Wyatt… What’s his name? Wyatt Earp. I’m telling you, they came out of those cars, and we have enough witnesses to hang ’em. With their guns smokin’. Chief Parker knows this, Mayor Yorty knows this and every police official in the city knows that. They didn’t fire no warning shots in  the air they fired warning shots point blank at innocent, unarmed, defenseless Negroes. As I say, two of the brothers were shot in the back. Another was shot in the shoulder. Another was shot, two of them were shot, excuse the expression, through the penis. (murmuring) Another was shot in the hip and the bullet came out the other side. But Arthur here was shot 1/4 of an inch from his heart.

Let me tell you something, and I’ll tell you why you say ‘we hate White people’. We don’t hate anybody. We love our own people so much, they think we hate the ones who are inflicting injustice against them. (applause) (video skips)

… who has been shot, the bullet having passed a 1/4 of an inch through his heart. I’m not gonna let him talk, which I think you can understand why. You should listen to the conversation of the police officers while it was going on. Two of the brothers who had been shot, who were lying hand in hand, the officer said they were chanting a death chant. You read that. They were saying ‘Allahu Akbar’. What does that mean? It means that God is the greatest. It means that God is the greatest. (applause)

Understand what the White officer called a death chant was a prayer. They were praying when they were shot down. They were saying Allhu Akbar. And it shook the officer up that they haven’t heard Black people talk any kinda talk but what they taught ’em. And two of the brothers who were shot in the back were telling me that as they lay on the sidewalk, they were holding hands. They held hands with each other saying Allahu Akbar. And the blood was seeping out of them where the police bullets had torn into their insides. Still, they said Allahu Akbar and the police came and kicked them in the head. Police kicked them in the head telling them to shut up that noise while they were laying on the sidewalk in front of our temple. Kicked them in the head. Shut up that noise.

And one of them, when he was on his way to the police station in the ambulance, one of the ambulance attendants told the White cop, ‘Why don’t you kill the nigger?’ He said, ‘I’ll tell them that he tried to get away. Why don’t you kill the nigger? While you got a chance. I’ll swear that he tried to get away.’ If he didn’t say this, then I need to be put in jail, and I’ll gladly go. (applause)

One of them who was being taken to jail in a police car as the ambulance sirens were coming to the place, one of the policeman said to the other: ‘What are the ambulances rushing for? Nothing but some niggers.’ So, he looked then and saw the Muslim brothers sitting beside him  and he shut up. But after he got to the jail, the same officer that said this turned to the brother and said; ‘I hope that you didn’t get offended by what I said back there under the heat of emotion, because some of my best friends are colored.’ (roaring) That’s what he said. That’s his password: ‘Some of my best friends are colored.’

And I for one, as a Muslim, believe that the White man is intelligent enough, if he were made to realise how Black people really feel and how fed up we are without that whole compromising sweet talk. Why you’re the one that make it hard for yourself. The White man believes you when you go to him with that old sweet talk ’cause you been sweet talkin’ him ever since he brought you here. Stop sweet talking him. Tell him how you feel. Tell him how or what kinda hell you been catching and let him know that if he’s not ready to clean his house up, if hes not ready to clean his house up, he shouldn’t have a house. It should catch on fire. And burn down. (applause)

As Muslims, we identify ourselves with the dark world. So we’re not any minority. We’re a part of the majority and the White man is the minority. (applause) You have to know this to understand us: we don’t think any odds are against us. We don’t fight a battle like the odds are against us. Why, the whole dark world today is in unity. It’s one. If you don’t think so, look at the United Nations. When the dark world votes, they vote as one. They gettin’ the colonialists out of Africa, and out of Asia. Tellin’ them to get out. They don’t have any nuclear weapons but they got a solid, united voice and their unity alone is sufficient to drive the oppressor and exploiter of their people out of their own country.

You and I need to learn a lesson from that right there. In the UN, the dark world consists of Buddhist’s, Hindu’s, Shinto’s, Taoist’s, Christian’s, Muslims, everything. But they’re together. They forget their religious and political differences. They think as one. They move as one against a common enemy. And [the French occupier] of Algeria, he’s going, don’t think he’s not going, he’s going. (applause) They’re getting him out of Angola, out of Tanganyika, out of Uganda, out of Kenya. He’s going from South Africa, too. He hasn’t got long to be there. All over this earth, dark people who have been oppressed and exploited by those who are not their own kind, strangers, are coming together to get the oppressor off their back. You and I learn a lesson from that.

102902907_2920463601354970_6572632586330798540_n

We are oppressed. We are exploited. We are downtrodden. We are denied, not only civil rights, but even human rights. So, the only way we’re going to get some of this oppression and exploitation away from us, or aside from us is come together against the common enemy. (applause) When they sat down at the Bandung conference, everyone there had this in common: a dark skin. Some of those who were sitting there were socialists, some were communists, some where capitalists, some were Christian, some were Buddhist. They were everything! But all of ’em was dark skinned. And they looked at that dark skin and agreed that this is one thing they had in common.

Forget that you’re a Methodist, forget that you’re a Catholic, forget that you’re a Protestant, forget that you’re a Muslim. Remember that all of us are Black, and we’re catching h… [end of video].

Donate as little as you can to support this work and subscribe to the Newsletter to get around censorship.

“Any amount counts, because a little money here and there, it’s like drops of water that can become rivers, seas or oceans…” Hassan Nasrallah

THE BJP AND ISRAEL: HINDU NATIONALISM IS RAVAGING DEMOCRACY IN INDIA

 A

It was only a matter of time before the anti-Muslim sentiment in India turned violent. A country that has historically prided itself on its diversity and tolerance and for being ‘the largest democracy in the world’ has, in recent years, exhibited the exact opposite qualities – chauvinism, racism, religious intolerance, and, at times, extreme violence.

The latest round of violence ensued on February 23, one day before U.S. President Donald Trump arrived in Delhi on his first official visit to India.

Trump is a beloved figure among Hindu nationalists, especially supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has ruled India since 2014.

BJP, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, has wreaked havoc on Indian politics and foreign policy. However, the damage that this ultra-nationalist movement has caused to Indian society is unmatched since the country’s independence in 1947.

Under BJP rule, hatred for Muslims, a sizable minority of over 200 million, among other minority groups, has grown over the years to represent the core discourse of a movement that is ideologically and morally bankrupt.

Jumping on the Islamophobia bandwagon, which has grown exponentially since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Hindu nationalists disguised their racist and chauvinistic ideology as part of a global ‘war on terror’.

It was no surprise, then, to see Modi reaching out to like-minded Islamophobes, the likes of right-wing Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The seemingly unbreakable Modi-Netanyahu ‘friendship’ underlies a growing pro-Israel movement among Hindu nationalists.

Hindu nationalists embrace Israel

Hindu nationalist ideologues and pro-Israel Zionists have long discovered a common cause, one that is predicated on a collective sense of racial supremacy and intolerance for Islam and Muslims.

In fact, Israel has, in recent years, emerged as the common denominator between various ultra-nationalist and far-right groups in India and across the globe. Strangely but tellingly, some of these groups are known for hostility towards Jews and outright antisemitism. However, for these groups, the anti-immigrant, anti-refugee and anti-Muslim sentiments were far more pressing priorities than all else.

While Europe and North America have received a greater share of political analysis regarding the rise of Islamophobia around the world, countries like India, Burma, and China have largely been excluded from the discussion.

It is true that the discrimination and violence against China’s Muslim minority, the Uyghurs, Burma’s Rohingya population and India’s Muslims, have all received a relatively fair share of media attention and analysis. However, the targeting of Muslims in these polities is largely perceived as provisional ‘conflicts’ that are unique to these areas, with little or no connection to global anti-Muslim phenomena.

But nothing could be further from the truth. For example, the fact that BJP politicians often refer to Muslim migrants in India as ‘infiltrators and termites’ mirrors the same dehumanizing lexicon used by Buddhist nationalists in Burma and Israeli Zionists in Palestine.

The likes of the Hindu Samhati movement, known for its anti-Muslim bigotry, has, therefore, become essential to this new global anti-Muslim brand. And, according to the same disturbing logic, hating Muslims then becomes synonymous with loving apartheid Israel.

Hence, it was not a complete surprise to see tens of thousands of Hindu nationalists rallying in Calcutta in February 2018 in what was described by organizers as “the largest pro-Israel rally” in history.

But what took place in New Delhi in February was more ominous than any other previous display of violence. Dozens of Indian Muslims were beaten to death and hundreds more were severely injured by mobs of angry Hindu nationalists.

While India is no stranger to mob violence, the recent bouts of bloodshed in that country are most alarming considering it is a rational outcome of a racist trajectory that has been championed by the BJP and their supporters.

Particularly alarming were scenes of Indian security forces either watching the brutality against Indian Muslims unfold without intervening or objecting in any way, or worse, participating in the violence themselves.

While it is rightly argued that the anti-Muslim campaign in India was triggered by Modi’s Citizenship Amendment Act which ultimately aims at rendering millions of Muslims in India stateless, the ailment lies in the BJP itself – a purely xenophobic movement that exploits the grievances of the poor and marginalized in India to maintain political power.

It goes without saying that India’s Modi is a far cry from the India that was envisaged by Mahatma Gandhi or the country’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

Unfortunately, with Modi and the BJP in power, India will experience yet more tragic days ahead. Flanked by equally racist and violent allies in Tel Aviv and Washington, Modi feels empowered to carry out more such sinister and discriminatory measures against the country’s vulnerable minorities, especially Muslims.

It is essential that we educate ourselves further about the situation in India, and that we understand the anti-Muslim politics and violence in that country within the larger global context. India’s Muslims need our solidarity more than ever before, especially as the emboldened BJP and their chauvinistic leader seem to have no moral boundaries whatsoever.

Feature photo | Hindu nationalists gather in India’s capital to demand construction of a Hindu temple on the ruins of a 16th century mosque in northern Indian city of Ayodhya, Dec. 9, 2018. Bernat Armangue | AP


By Ramzy Baroud
Source: MintPress News

وفاة المفكر السوري محمد شحرور The death of the Syrian thinker Muhammad Shahrour

بروكار برس – أبو ظبي

توفي المفكر السوري الدكتور محمد شحرور (80 عاماً) اليوم السبت في  أبو ظبي وسينقل جثمانه إلى دمشق بناءً على وصيته ليدفن في مقبرة العائلة.

أصدر عددا كبيرا من الكتب البحثية منها:

(الكتاب والقرآن – قراءة معاصرة) عام 1990.

(الدولة والمجتمع) عام 1994.

(الإسلام والإيمان – منظومة القيم) عام 1996.

(تجفيف منابع الإرهاب) عام 2008.

(الدين والسلطة – قراءة معاصرة للحاكمية) عام 2014.

(الإسلام والإيمان – منظومة القيم) عام 2014

(فقه المرأة – نحو أصول جديدة للفقه الإسلامي) عام 2015

From Khashoggi to Nicki Minaj: the immoral misadventures of MBS

Source

July 13, 2019

by Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker Blog cross posted by permission with PressTV

(Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of “I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China”.)

Last month I was in Tehran for the end of Ramazan, and the night before Eid e-Fitr my family and I went to a public street food festival downtown.

It might surprise many non-Iranians, but the array of live music included electric guitars and rock and roll. The rockers did not draw a bigger crowd than an excellent, traditionally-dressed Sufi singer playing the daf (a Middle Eastern hand drum).

It will likely not surprise non-Iranians, however, that there was not any performer who resembled Nicki Minaj.

Saudi Arabia provoked indignation across the Muslim world by inviting Minaj, an American rapper known for her nearly-naked live performances and profanity, to perform in public at a cultural festival in Jeddah.

Saudi women fairly complained: How can the government (and probably also their grandmothers) compel them to wear modest clothing in public, but then give a stage to Minaj?

Saudi women who support their dress code – and credible polls show that Saudi women overwhelmingly support both the code as well as the most modest forms of female Muslim dress – fairly screamed that Mohammad Bin Salman is helping Minaj break a rule which they truly treasure.

Minaj’s concert would have come just ahead of the annual Hajj pilgrimage, adding another layer of democratic disapproval at home and shock across the Muslim world. The Minaj invitation provided yet another reason why Muslims are openly boycotting Hajj like never before: The Saudi monarchy clearly does not respect the values of Islam, and they are committing horrific crimes against Muslims.

Minaj has just pulled out of the concert, saying that she did not want to perform in a country where “women have no rights”, adding that her decision was not intended to “disrespect” the Saudi government. Minaj shows her lack of political modernity by declaring her respect for the reactionary and outdated form of government of monarchism, but MBS is sure to be very sad-faced about her decision – this puts him at odds with the average Saudi person’s morality, yet again.

Our headline does not equate the death of (psuedo-dissident) Jamal Khashoggi with the now-cancelled performance of a stripteasing rapper – it points out how both are cases of the Saudi monarchy evincing no respect for humanity nor for the democratic will of Saudi Arabians.

Minaj and her values are embraced and encouraged in the US, and that is their decision – it is not for Saudi Arabia to impose their choices on the US, any more than the average Saudi wants the US to decide how they should live. However, it seems rather obvious that the average Saudi woman and man absolutely disagrees with Minaj’s values, and it is the obligation of rulers (we cannot use the phrase “civil servants” in the Saudi context) to respect their own people (subjects, in the Saudi context).

Yet we should never be surprised that MBS – or any Arab monarch – so blatantly defies public opinion, because these Western-propped governments lack anything resembling modern democratic structures. Who knows what whim possesses them to do anything? What is certain is that they act with zero accountability, zero democracy, zero notions of post-aristocratic ideals, and in a manner which is totally unbecoming of the custodians of Islam’s most important sites.

The goal of the Minaj invitation seemed obvious, and we see Israel do the same thing: it was an attempt to whitewash the regime’s crimes within the Western public: By slavishly showing the West that they embrace Western pop culture, they are trying to “normalise” reactionary, murderous and apartheid-like conditions.

This is why the Saudis promised fast-tracked electronic visas for international visitors: they want the West’s 1% taste-makers to visit, and then return home saying,

“Saudi Arabia is just like us – our Western government is right to support them.”

Their governments are not right.

The show would have been broadcast by MTV, which would have furthered the reach of this attempt to normalise an abnormal government. MTV would have surely billed Minaj’s performance as a “step forward for female empowerment in Saudi Arabia”, which is preposterous.

If Minaj truly wanted to empower the average Saudi Arabian woman she could have considered performing in local clothing – that would say, “Saudi women have a culture worthy of admiration, emulation and respect.” Minaj performing in an abaya could show young, impressionable MTV viewers that Islamophobia is wrong, and that the anti-hijab laws across Europe are racist, anti-democratic and produce violent attacks on Muslim women. But fighting Muslims – not fighting Islamophobia – is the goal of the West’s leadership, from their political leaders to their cultural elite.

The Saudi monarchy is also not right in supporting Minaj’s brand of rap. I reviewed some of her lyrics, as I am unfamiliar with her music: her lyrics openly glorify her pride in exchanging her beauty for money and luxury; they glorify criminality and drug-dealing; they are ragingly capitalist and obsessed with asserting her self-importance and your inferiority.

When I read Minaj’s lyrics I don’t see an artist, but I do occasionally see an attempt at art: Minaj deserves credit for also talking about how her African-American community has been absolutely devastated by the incredibly racist policies of the United States at all levels of their government.

It is no wonder that the vast majority of Minaj’s lyrics are so debased – she is from a community which has been degraded for 400+ years simply because of their color. The recognition of this degradation is why during the occupation of the US embassy in 1979 the modern Iranian leadership freed not just the embassy’s women but also the African-Americans.

But, excepting their slave era, it is now worse than ever for African-Americans: Since 1980 their imprisonment rates have skyrocketed by well over 300%, a community-crushing experience which may only be paralleled by Palestinians. This has devastated African-American families, and thus gutted their culture and music of peace, hope, harmony and love.

Compounding this sadness is the fear and violence they live with – guns and gang warfare are permitted to flourish in the African-American part of town, whatever town that is, and this is expressly by American cultural design. The US government, at all levels, has no interest in providing African-American citizens and taxpayers with safety or law and order. Even Europe’s Roma don’t live with such violence, at least.

Adding to all that: The economic and political power redistribution efforts finally begun in the 1960s were killed by the Democrat Bill Clinton, and thus endemic poverty in the African-American community adds yet another level of hardship and tremendous suffering to their daily lives.

Therefore, considering how often she has seen her fellow African-Americans die young, and spend their lives in prison, and spend their lives in poverty, then I can understand why Minaj’s lyrics are so unconcerned with consequences and so concerned with immediate, greedy acquisition. After all, acceptance of these degraded concepts have been been violently forced upon the African-American community, just like drugs, guns, poverty and familial dissolution.

Minaj is thus just another raging American capitalist – with all the depravity that implies – because African-Americans are given no other way out. She sells her body just as violently as a Black American football player from the ghetto does in the hope of acquiring a university education.

Given this reality, when Washington’s officials and NGOs try to lecture Iran about human rights, I wonder if they have ever even set foot inside the entire African-American-majority cities of Gary, Indiana, or Flint, Michigan, or most of the west side of Chicago, or any of the thousands of “American Apartheid” towns and neighbourhoods. The systematic oppression of African-Americans may be ignored by them, but it is not going unnoticed by the rest of the world. When Iranian officials say that the values of Washington make diplomacy impossible – and this was heard long before the JCPOA – this is certainly one of the situations they are referring to.

All these things cannot be admitted in the United States. The oppression, delusion and total hypocrisy in the US regarding this abomination is so extreme that I find it hard to conceive that African-Americans could acquire justice before Palestinians do.

Minaj has certainly not been elevated by their mainstream media for her prideful lyrical defences of her besieged community, although I can imagine that does explain part of her popularity among the African-American community. No, Minaj is elevated as a “liberator” and “model example” by the Western 1% expressly because of her vulgarity, both romantic and ideological.

Minaj actually serves an important function: she injects this culture of desperation, violence and self-centeredness – which is required to survive in a US ghetto – into the culture of the middle and upper classes, which have no need to resort to such desperate tactics, and this helps perpetuate US neo-imperialist culture at home and abroad. US capitalism-imperialism first requires, of course, domestic indoctrination of their own people.

But the problems of the African-American community are not the responsibilities of MBS and the Saudi monarchy – reflecting the moral standards and public opinion of the Saudi people is.

Minaj victimises everyone with her lyrics, probably because she doesn’t realise that she has been victimised herself by US culture. While it technically could depend on the song she chooses to rap and the manner in which she would have appeared on stage to rap it, barring some sort of immediate and drastic conversion she would have certainly victimised impressionable Saudi Arabians as well.

I personally respect Nicki Minaj a great deal – she is a human being and a woman, and she deserves much better than being paid to gratify a leering, murderous sheik.

I also personally respect the people of Saudi Arabia and their wishes for democratic empowerment – I hope they finally realise that their reactionary monarchy do not, and never will.

‘Israeli’ Journalist Quits TV Debate to Protest against the ‘Saudi King’s Abuse’

By Staff, Agencies

Advisor to Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office and ‘Israeli’ political analyst Eddie Cohen withdrew from a television debate in protest against the ‘blasphemy of Saudi King Salman bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud.’

This incident happened during a daily debate on the Zionist “i24news” screen, with the guest Hassan Merhej, a Middle East expert who insulted the Saudi monarch, saying that the king cursed the Saudi red line prompting Cohen to withdraw.

Cohen also claimed that the positions of the King of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the rulers of the UAE represent true Islam, and that they do not practice a policy against the interests of their country.

The debate also dealt with the imposition of sanctions by the United States against Hezbollah Members of the Lebanese Parliament.

Clash of Civilizations 2.0 Sponsored by Prince and Bannon

Wayne Madsen
April 26, 2019
Bannon, Prince, and other far-rightists are now attempting to impose on their followers and fellow-travelers the same sort of “groupthink” Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels applied to Germany.

Blackwater mercenary company founder Erik Prince and the self-appointed leader of Fascist International, Steve Bannon, have joined forces and dusted off the old discredited neo-conservative theory of “Clash of Civilizations,” to threaten global stability with religious and ethnic nationalism.

One of the more important revelations in former Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the 2016 election is the close working relationship Bannon established with Prince. Sensing fertile political ground for their far-right beliefs, Bannon and Prince have established, under the aegis of their professed Catholicism, a movement that threatens both the current pope and the European Union.

The Clash of Civilizations was the main tenet of Harvard University’s Samuel P. Huntington. Huntington also defended the pro-fascist Mexican Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) of Mexico and the military dictatorship of Brazil. Huntington was also a champion of South Africa’s apartheid state and advocated its “reform” rather than its abolishment. Huntington’s approaches to Latin American immigration into the United States serves a basis for the draconian anti-immigration policies of Donald Trump and his “immigration czar,” Stephen Miller. Huntington saw Europe and Western Europe, including Croatia and Slovenia, along with Australia and New Zealand as a “core civilization” against the rest of the world. Huntington made it a point to exclude from the core civilization the Christian Orthodox nations of the Balkans, including Greece, as well as Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and Armenia.

To advance political domination by far-right political parties and politicians, Bannon has been busy establishing a training academy for far-right wing Christian zealots at the Trisulti Charterhouse in Collepardo in central Italy. Bannon has admitted that he is following George Soros’s global playbook. Instead of a neo-liberal global network, like that of Soros, Bannon is creating a far-right political movement in Europe that will extend its tentacles around the world, primarily in Huntington’s “core civilization” countries plus Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. With his political group, called “The Movement” in operation in Brussels and targeting upcoming European Parliament elections, Bannon has taken advantage of a schism within the Roman Catholic Church to convincing those opposed to Pope Francis I to permit him to set up shop in the 13th century monastery in Collepardo.

Bannon is clearly setting the stage for a revised “clash of civilizations” between Judeo-Christianity and the rest of the world. Fascism is seen as the preferred political system for the Western “core.”

Bannon’s colleague in the 2016 Trump campaign, Michael Ledeen, the notorious neo-conservative, wrote a book in 1972 that promotes the fascist political philosophy. Titled “Universal Fascism: The Theory and Practice of the Fascist International, 1928–1936,” Ledeen describes in glowing terms Mussolini’s efforts to create an international Fascist movement in the late 1920s and early 1930s. According to an interview Ledeen gave to the neo-con “National Review” in 2002, the Ledeen Doctrine boils down to the following credo: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” Mussolini’s template has largely been adopted by Bannon, who, still has, along with arch neo-con national security adviser John Bolton, still have Trump’s ear on foreign policy.

Bannon is attempting to purge the nexus of his Judeo-Christian core civilization of perceived enemies, who include Vatican loyalists of Pope Francis. Bannon – in cooperation with the extremely conservative Cardinal Raymond Burke and former Pope Benedict XVI – has been waging a political jihad against Pope Francis. Bannon believes the current pontiff to be a dangerous liberal and a “Cultural Marxist,” who supported many of President Barack Obama’s policies. Bannon and a right-wing Catholic group close to Burke, the Institute of Human Dignity, or Dignitatis Humana Institute, which runs Bannon’s new headquarters at the Trisulti Abbey, opposes Francis’s goal of avoiding a “clash of civilizations” between Christianity and Islam.

Bannon, in cooperation with Cardinal Raymond Burke and former Pope Benedict XVI, has been waging a war against Pope Francis I. Bannon sees Francis as a dangerous liberal and a “Cultural Marxist,” who supported President Barack Obama’s policies. Bannon and a right-wing Catholic group close to Burke, the Institute of Human Dignity, or “Dignitatis Humana Institute,’ which owns Bannon’s new headquarters at the Trisulti Abbey, opposes Francis’s goal of avoiding a “clash of civilizations,” particularly one between Christianity and Islam.

Bannon’s financial firm, Bannon & Company, is investing in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, believed by many financial experts to be a giant scam. Cryptocurrencies are favored by neo-Nazis and fascists to fund their activities without the worry of financial surveillance from bank regulators and financial intelligence agencies. Bannon, as a former Goldman Sachs executive, understands how to avoid financial network roadblocks.

One of the mandatory studies at Bannon’s academy for neo-Nazis will most certainly be on the works and thoughts of Julius Evola (1898-1974), a far-right Italian philosopher, who provided the inspiration for several fascist terrorist attacks in Italy during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, including the deadly Bologna central rail station bombing in 1980. Bannon is a promoter of Evola’s doctrine, which is known as Traditionalism. The followers of Evola are called the “Children of the Sun” and they include adherents of two leading neo-Nazi parties in Europe: Golden Dawn in Greece and Jobbik in Hungary. Other Traditionalist philosophers, all of whom dabbled in Indo-European Aryan occultism and, to varying degrees, embraced fascism in the interwar years, include Romanian Mircea Eliade (1907-1986), French/Egyptian René Guénon (1886-1951), and Ceylonese (Sri Lankan) Ananda Coomaraswamy (1887-1947).

US neo-Nazi leader and “alt-right” term creator, Richard Spencer, a college friend of Trump’s anti-immigration czar, Stephen Miller, is also a follower of Evola. Evola’s writings were an inspiration to Benito Mussolini Fascist movement and Heinrich Himmler’s Schutzstaffel (SS). Evola even visited SS headquarters in Germany to proselytize his philosophy of fascism to the SS rank and file.

Bannon’s and Prince’s intertwined political finances were exposed during the 2016 presidential campaign. Prince donated some $150,000 to the pro-Trump PAC “Make America Number 1 in 2016.” In turn, the PAC funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to Cambridge Analytica and Glittering Steel, a video production company. Bannon co-founded both companies. Bannon was also buoyed by generous funding from hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. Currently, with a seemingly endless supply of funds, Bannon is waging a far-right insurgency in Europe involving neo-Nazi, fascist, and right-wing Catholic organizations close to Opus Dei.

Erik Prince abandoned the conservative Calvinism of his auto parts-manufacturing wealthy father to embrace Catholicism, Opus Dei, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta – based in Rome and a rival-laden headache for Pope Francis – and the Legionnaires of Christ. Opus Dei was founded by Spanish priest Josemaría Escrivá in 1928 as a pro-fascist and pro-Francisco Franco answer to the more liberal-minded Jesuits. It is noteworthy that Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pontiff, is currently experiencing a virtual civil war within the catholic Church and Vatican hierarchy, spurred on by the likes of Bannon, Prince, former Pope Benedict, and other right-wing members of the College of Cardinals.

Bannon, Prince, and other far-rightists are now attempting to impose on their followers and fellow-travelers the same sort of “groupthink” Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels applied to Germany. In his seminal work, Yale University professor Irving Janis summed up “groupthink,” particularly how groups can, conversely to bringing out the best in people, also bring out the worst. Janis’s 1982 book, “Groupthink,” describes the phenomenon by quoting 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: “Madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups.” Europe’s current fascination and widespread support for political parties that were largely banned and shunned after the Nazi defeat in 1945 have created an environment where Bannon, Prince, and their collaborators find ready audiences for their extremism. In such climates, a strategy of tension permits a clash of civilizations, which is nirvana for the neo-cons and extreme right.

The recent deadly Christchurch mosque attacks appear to have been the first act in a strategy of tensions conflict being waged by the far-right. The Easter Sunday bombings of churches in Negombo, Batticaloa, and Colombo, Sri Lanka, as well as three five-star hotels in Colombo – killing well over 300 people, were reportedly claimed by a hitherto unknown group called the National Thowheed Jamath or National Monotheism Organization. Sri Lanka’s government alleged the attacks were in retaliation for the Christchurch mosque bombings. Some things are known about the group claiming it carried out the attacks in Sri Lanka. It is not connected operationally to either the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, although the Islamic State made unverifiable claims of responsibility. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said that New Zealand’s intelligence has no indication that the Sri Lanka attacks were in retaliation for the Sri Lanka attacks. It should be noted that New Zealand, as a member of the FIVE EYES signals intelligence alliance, has access to countless communications intercepts.

While flames leaped from Paris’s iconic Notre Dame Cathedral on April 15, a fire broke out at the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, Islam’s third-holiest shrine. In the weeks preceding the Notre Dame fire, vandals broke into Notre-Dame-des-enfants in Nîmes, France and smeared excrement on the crucifix and walls of the church. In March, a fire broke out at another famous Paris church, Saint-Sulpice. In February, a fire broke out in Lavaur Cathedral in Lavaur, France. That fire was preceded by vandalism of Saint Nicolas in Houilles and Saint Nicolas in Maisons-Laffitte in Yvelines.

Arson also destroyed three African-American churches in Opelousas, Louisiana. The son of a sheriff’s deputy was arrested for arson. Louisiana has recently been the scene of renewed activities by Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups.

All of the incidents – in New Zealand, Sri Lanka, France, and Louisiana – those confirmed as terrorism and those for which the jury is still out, should be viewed through the lens of the strategy of tensions and a final showdown between Christianity and Islam advanced by Bannon, Prince, and their supporters in Brussels and the Trisulti monastery.

The world has seen this particular play before. From the late 1960s to the 1980s, over two thousand people died in terrorist attacks blamed mainly on left-wing terrorists, including the Italian Red Brigades and West German Red Army Faction. The victims included the former Christian Democratic Prime Minister of Italy, Aldo Moro. The deadliest attack was the bombing of the Bologna rail station in 1980. Originally, there was an attempt to blame all the attacks, mostly bombings, on the left-wing groups. In fact, most of the attacks were carried out by neo-fascist groups hoping to have the Communists blamed. Inquiry commissions later determined that the neo-fascists and far-left groups all had links to the Central Intelligence Agency – which once employed Erik Prince’s Blackwater as a contractor – and the intelligence services of NATO members. It was the late Turkish Prime Minister, Bulent Ecevit, who revealed the name of the sinister association of NATO spies and false flag terrorists: Gladio.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

Why 2019 Ukraine Imports Terrorists and Exports Terror 1992-2019

April 10, 2019

by George Eliason, Special Correspondent for the Saker Blog in Novorussia

OUNb tymoshenko.PNG

The shame of post 2014 Ukraine is that the only equivalent situation that could exist is putting the Ukrainian SS death camp guards, their families, and officers’ in charge of Israel. Would giving death camp torturers and lever pullers free reign to do what they want to an entire people have been the thing to do during or after WWII? As you’ll soon see, the Israeli’s and some stellar international Jewish leaders think so as long as it ain’t them.

In 2014, Israel’s Ambassador to Ukraine Reuven Din El and the ADL’s Abe Foxman met with Pravy Sektor leader Dimitry Yarosh. Even though Yarosh is a disciple of the WWII criminal Bandera and the Israelis know the OUNb murdered 900,000 Ukrainian Jews in Ukraine, they decided they believed Yarosh that the OUN is not anti-Semitic.

What Yarosh may not have told them but they knew anyway, is that prior to Pravy Sektor, he was the leader of Trizub Bandery. It was the militant arm of Slava Stetsko’s new political party in Ukraine called CUN (Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists). Yarosh was the WWII murderess’ bodyguard. In his eyes, he was the heir apparent and incarnation of what Nazi sycophant Stepan Bandera would hope for to lead Ukrainian nationalists in 2014.

So, of course Jewish leaders had every right to give Yarosh a clean bill of political health to the rest of the world. Sure. That was the only reasonable and responsible thing for them to do. Ukraine still denies any responsibility for the millions of lives their progenitors took or the lives they are taking today.

Slava Stetsko’s OUNb (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists –Bandera faction) made a triumphant entry into Ukraine and cemented the dominance Diaspora nationalists would have in the region. When she came in June 1991, part of celebrating her husband’s work was commemorating the June 1941 Lviv Pogrom her husband started. He was celebrating his declaration of the Ukrainian state which never came into being.

Why is this relevant to the events of 2014 through the 2019 Ukrainian election? What does it have to do with exporting terrorism?

Back in 1991, the Ukrainian nationalists OUNb were at a loss at how to proceed. “It had great ideological difficulties, however, because of its confrontation with Western democracy, its inability to deal fully with the question of the political beliefs of Ukrainians in Ukraine, and its lack of contact with political processes there.” Encyclopedia of Ukraine- Nationalism article.

Since their side (Nazi) lost the war, the Ukrainians were never able to set up a state. 1991 provided the perfect opportunity and let’s face it that only comes around once. The nationalists, now based in the Ukrainian Diaspora thought they would inherit Bukovina and Galicia. Instead, they hit the jackpot with all of Soviet Ukraine.

The Ukrainian nationalists were given the lands they couldn’t conquer or coax into line. The problem they faced was over 80% of those lands were never nationalist and hated OUNb fascism. Diaspora Ukrainian nationalists thought people in Ukraine were too Sovietized and could not be remade into nationalists.

The Ukrainian nationalists started a slow process of genocide through Ecocide across Ukraine and especially in Donbass. The Ukrainians suppressed the economy in areas not hospitable to their politics and moved the money and resources toward western Ukraine. The thought was and is if you can’t convert them, kill them or move them out of the way.

The Diaspora and OUN leadership started handpicking politicians in Ukraine based on these objectives.

poroshenko stetsko.jpg This is the Ukrainian OUNb (Bandera) leader Slava Stetsko with Petr Poroshenko in 2003, before she died.Poroshenko is up for reelection in 2019.
Lviv_pogrom_(June_-_July_1941).jpg This image is from the Lviv Pogrom that followed OUNb leader Yaroslav Stetsko’s Ukraine Proclamation. The caption reads that the Ukrainian nationalist death dealer is right behind her.So we know 3 things.

  1. This woman is Jewish.
  2. Slava Stetsko never lost a night’s sleep over this woman being bludgeoned to death.
  3. Stetsko and all the Ukrainian nationalists celebrated doing this in 1991.
  4. Slava Stetsko is the political and spiritual mother of Ukraine. She is a hero with monuments dedicated to her in Ukraine.

“Although I consider Moscow, which in fact held Ukraine in captivity, and not Jewry, to be the main and decisive enemy, I nonetheless fully appreciate the undeniably harmful and hostile role of the Jews, who are helping Moscow to enslave Ukraine. I therefore support the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine, barring their assimilation and the like. –Yaroslav Stetsko Carynnyk, ‘A Knife in the Back of Our Revolution’

How both Stetsko’s viewed Jews in 1941 is how Ukrainian nationalists see today’s Donbass and the way they want to resolve the situation for posterity. Why does post Soviet Ukraine and especially Donbass Russians have less value than animals to the Ukrainian government?

For any of this to be current and threatening, reality dictates the World War II relic OUNb has to exist today, doesn’t it? For there to be a Nazi threat, there has to be Nazis. Is it possible Ukraine could find people so filled with hate; they fill those shoes in 2019?

Imagine finding out real political Nazis not only exist, you subsidize them. Do you think your WWII era grandparents would talk to you after finding out you supported this “democracy?”

Since 1992, different factions of the OUN have control of Ukraine. When it looked like that grip might weaken, Yanukovych was kicked to the curb in 2014.

According to the Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, “Other statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for the release of Ms. Tymoshenko and Mr. Lutsenko, and demanded judicial proceedings based on democratic … the correct response on the part of both the diaspora and Ukrainians in the homeland would be a boycott of representatives of Ukraine’s authorities.”

Now we have 2019 Ukrainian presidential candidate #2, Yulia Tymoshenko and her lieutenant Lutsenko firmly ensconced in and protected by the OUNb. This Nazi group predates Adolf Hitler and has never changed politic or policy.

By turning a blind eye to the Ukrainian nationalism’s fascist policies against post Soviet Ukrainians, the West doomed the country to eventual failure. Ukrainian citizens are not going to stay under the boot of fascist leaning politicians and political activists forever.

What happens when Ukrainians fully realize their country’s policies hurting them and their children originate in cities like Boston, Edmonton, Geelong, Bound Brook, or Kersonkson NY as long as they support a Poroshenko, Tymoshenko, or Zelensky?

And after normal people and journalists in the US, EU, AU, or Canada figure it out, how many western country politicians are going to sit back and allow Ukraine to export terrorists under various nationalisms back into their own borders?

None of this could have happened if the Ukrainian Diaspora were kept out of Ukraine post 1991. This is a look at the continuity of violence and genocide Ukraine and its Diaspora export. Post 1991 Ukraine joined the Diaspora ranks of “the Ukraine” in the worldwide propagation of nationalist uprisings, assassination, and murder.

The monster the western world has for so long chosen to ignore isn’t on its way home. It’s already coming out of the closet and eating the children.

The rest of the article won’t be about what Donbass and what’s left of Ukraine face after Ukraine’s 2019 election. Regardless of which nationalist wins, that result is already clear. Instead, it’s about what’s happened, what’s happening, and what may happen in your world.

“Stetsko argued that Fascism, National Socialism, and the coming Ukrainian uprising were links in the chain of a single world revolution. Ukrainian nationalism would bring down Russia and open a new chapter in the history of Eastern Europe.‘The tasks of Ukrainian nationalism’, he wrote, ‘begin where the tasks of Fascism and National Socialism end.” Carynnyk, ‘A Knife in the Back of Our Revolution’

Slava Stetsko believed this until she died and worked to achieve it for over 60 years. By combining all the little statelets that had no power, she created a lobby bloc and voting bloc in the US that determined election outcomes. Congressmen and national candidates needed her money to be in the game. Her goal wasn’t Democracy, not as you think of it. Nationalists in general view Democracy as a form of Socialism or Internationalism. They are all fascists whether they realize it or not.

Rolling all the ethnic nationalist groups into “the Ukrainians” to gain power and influence foreign policy was the only thing that made sense.- Madison, Wilson, and East Central European Federalism- A Dissertation submitted to The Division of Research and Advanced Studies Of the University of Cincinnati DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.) in the Department of Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences 2006 by Jonathan H. Levy

“This might appear confusing or even contradictory, but it is necessary in order to demonstrate the complexity of the meaning of “fascism” in the ideology of the Ukrainian nationalists, who called themselves “nationalists” but emphasized that they belonged to the family of European fascist movements and were closely related to the Italian Fascists, German National Socialists, British Fascists, Croatian Ustaša, and other similar movements. By examining Ukrainian radical nationalism in the context of fascist studies.” – The Fascist Kernel of Ukrainian Nationalism

Before you roll your eyes and yawn, let’s look at how a letter to Congress is signed from this kind of nationalist group asserting its power. Better yet, the following link contains an actual letter and email addresses of leaders in case you need to clarify anything in this article.

As the leaders of more than two dozen American ethnic organizations, representing tens of millions of voters across the United States, we call on you to provide vital support to Ukraine by immediately passing Senate Bill 2124.

Respectfully yours,

Naci Tozer President American Association of Crimean Turks, Sean Pender President New Jersey Chapter Ancient Order of Hibernians in America Inc., Dan Dennehy Chairman National & NYS Immigration Ancient Order of Hibernians in America Inc., Darek Barcikowski Secretary & Executive Board Member American Polish Advisory Council, Marilyn Piurek Co-Founder & Advisor American Polish Advisory Council, James J. Zogby President Arab American Institute, Mehmet Celebi President Assembly of Turkish American Associations, Javid Huseynov General Director Azerbaijan-American Council, Tomris Azeri President Azerbaijan-American Society, Walter Zaryckyj Executive Director Center for US-Ukrainian Relations, Marju Rink-Abel President Estonian American National Council, Atilla Pak President Federation of Turkish American Associations, Maximilian N. Teleki President Hungarian American Coalition, Karl Altau Managing Director Joint Baltic American National Committee Inc., Marta Farion President Kyiv Mohyla Foundation of America, Lyuba Shipovich President RAZOM, Ayla Bakkalli USA Representative The Crimean Tatar Mejlis, Julian Kulas President The Heritage Foundation, Maria Shust Director The Ukrainian Museum, Andrew Bihun President The Washington Group, Ukrainian-American Assoc. of Professionals,US UNITED WITH UKRAINE COALITION, Petro Kostiv President Ukrainian American Bar Association, Ihor Gawdiak President Ukrainian American Coordinating Council, Most. Rev. Stefan Soroka Metropolitan Ukrainian Catholic Church in USA, Archbishop of Philadelphia for Ukrainians, Alex Strilchuk President Illinois Division Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, Ihor Kusznir President Philadelphia Chapter Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, Ulana Mazurkevich President Ukrainian Human Rights Committee, Andrew Fedynsky Director Ukrainian Museum-Archives, Stefan Kaczaraj President Ukrainian National Association, Inc., Marianna Zajac President Ukrainian National Women’s League of America (UNWLA), His Eminence Antony Metropolitan and Prime Hierarch Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, His Grace Bishop Daniel President of the Consistory Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, Marta Liscynesky Kelleher President United American Organizations of Ohio, Meto Koloski President United Macedonian Diaspora, Larissa Kyj President United Ukrainian American Relief Committee, Alexandra Chalupa Founder & Acting President US United With Ukraine”

The nationalists started spreading their wings again and under the Ukrainian banner teach the world’s disgruntled how to be better at terror. And they started spending hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of doing it. Those signatures represent a fraction of signatory groups.

From 1991 onward, the Ukrainian nationalists have been tied to the major terrorist groups plaguing the West. They train them, train with them, and fight with them.

The Ukrainian nationalists fought alongside Chechen rebels that earlier went to Afghanistan and fought for the Taliban.

Oleksandr Muzychko.jpg Sasha Biliy, an insane Ukrainian nationalist fought for the Chechen rebels.According to Wikipedia, he was accused of murdering 20 Russian prisoners during the 1st Chechen war.

Biliy was a coordinator for Pravy Sektor during the 2014 coup and proved so out of control he had to be put down outside a restaurant.

The official story is Biliy shot himself in the head 3 times.

Biliy was one of many Ukrainian nationalists on the terrorism learning curve in Chechnya.

This would become important after 2014 when the Chechens returned the favor by providing brigades of ISIS fighters to the frontline in Donbass.

According to EA Daily, former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk was involved in torture and executions of Russian POWs in the Chechen War. Yatsenyuk was a member of the Ukrainian nationalist UNA-UNSO whose leader Yuriy Shukhevych whose father was the leader of the WWII UPA and a Waffen SS officer.

Yatsenyuk was awarded the Chechen rebels Dzhokhar Dudayev’s military decoration “Dignity of the Nation.” The importance of this is when the Chechen rebel Dzhokhar Dudayev battalion leaves Syria and bring ISIS/IGIL to the battlefields of Donbass. Ukraine works directly with ISIS/IGIL.

According to the EA Daily article, the list of current Ukrainian politicians involved includes Dmitry Korchinsky, the head of UNA-UNSO, Dmitry Yarosh, deputy of the Supreme Rada, Valery Bobrovych, the commander of the punitive battalion “Argo,” Oleh Tyahnybok, deputy of the Supreme Rada and his brother Andrey Tyahnybok.

 

schuster with taliban afghanistan alqueda.jpg Ukrainian nationalists in AfghanistanSimon Schuster fighting for Al Qaeda in the 1980s.

Schuster went on to become a TV presenter in Ukraine.

Schuster became famous during the Odessa Pogrom in 2014 when his studio audience applauded the murder going on in front of them through live camera feeds and interviews.

In the spring of 2014, ISIS officially entered the service of the Ukrainian government as it was gearing up to slaughter the citizens in Donbass at the invitation of then Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, interim president Olexandr Turchynov,  and future President of Ukraine, Petr Poroshenko.

When and where did “the Ukrainians” get involved with Islamic terrorists?

In the late 1920s, Islamic political radicals in Egypt formed a group called the Muslim Brotherhood. The group “Young Egyptians” followed.  Members of these groups intertwined and were part of or in step with the Promethean Project and were part of “the Ukrainians.”Their ties to Ukraine originally were membership in an exclusive group called the Nazi Axis by every country fighting Adolf Hitler.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its subsequent terrorist groups is the product of Western philosophy, not the religion of Islam.

The funny thing about these terrorists they can quote fascist philosophers like Julius Evola a lot easier than they can quote their own supposed holy book.

The Brotherhood with regard to their religious and mystical leanings are Sufi or more specifically Qutbist, for those who follow Sayyid Qutb. This is the philosophy of the Muslim Brotherhood which is essentially NeoPlatonic and does not distinguish between matters of belief, so long as people adhere to their movement. This is why the outwardly Shia al Zawaheri and the outwardly Sunni bin Laden can be comrades and brothers.

In an article titled “Terror, Islam and Democracy,” Ladan and Roya Boroumand correctly state that “Most young Islamist cadres today are the direct intellectual and spiritual heirs of the Qutbist wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.” And further, “When the authoritarian regime of President Gamel Abdel Nasser suppressed the Muslim Brothers in 1954 (it would eventually get around to hanging Qutb in 1966), many went into exile in Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Morocco. From there, they spread their revolutionary Islamist ideas – including the organizational and ideological tools borrowed from European totalitarianism.”
The Independent’s John Gray argues in an article entitled “How Marx turned Muslim” that Qutbism is not rooted in the Islamic tradition, but rather, is very much a Western-based ideology. 

Shaykh Rabee’ ibn Hadi al-Madkhali, the renowned Salafi scholar who has written several books refuting the mistakes of Sayyid Qutb, concludes the following about Qutbism: “The Qutbists are the followers of Sayyid Qutb… everything you see of the tribulations, the shedding of blood and the problems in the Islamic world today arise from the methodology (of this man).”

This is what is behind Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, ISIS/IGIL in the Middle East. Their central and eastern European counterparts are found in the old Hapsberg Empire holdings. This is why ISIS came to Ukraine and fought for the nationalists in Donbass. They have been connected to Bandera since the 1930s.

Now, this is a huge allegation for the average reader even knowing how large the Ukrainian lobby is in the US. And, yes Virginia there is a worldwide conspiracy going on, but it’s a lot simpler than you think.

In an article aptly titled Democrat Says Americans Owe Nazis for Suffering and Gives ISIS Eulogy on C-SPAN, it’s made hurtfully clear that a progressive Congressional rep with a stellar record in her district can be a vehement supporter of ISIS/IGIL and genocide at the same time. She can support the murder and torture of people she hates because her ethnic community fought against them and lost in WWII. Marcy Kaptur is a Ukrainian nationalist and this political disease infects both parties today.

When a Congressional Rep gives a eulogy for killed ISIS head-choppers in Congress, on C-SPAN; sorry kids, it’s past time to slam the brakes on this train.

It was the Ukrainians that infected the 2016 US election with their brand of hate and we’ll be revisiting this later. Next, we’ll dive into the first round of the Ukrainian election and what it means there. Following shortly after that, we’ll look at what happened in Charleston in light of where the real provocations are coming from. Care to guess?

For more than 100 years, Ukrainian nationalism has brought nothing but hate, pain, and suffering to the world. The 2019 election in Ukraine isn’t going to change that unless the international community decides they’ve had enough terrorism in this decade.

Force Ukraine to fulfill the Minsk Agreement. Make Ukraine obligated to social and economic reform in Ukraine. Stop the civil war and provocations with Russia.

Trump Supporters in Denial over New Zealand Massacre

Trump Supporters in Denial over New Zealand Massacre

FINIAN CUNNINGHAM | 17.03.2019 | WORLD / AMERICAS

Trump Supporters in Denial over New Zealand Massacre

US President Donald Trump condemned the New Zealand massacre of 50 people by a self-declared white fascist as “horrible”. In an ambiguous choice of words, Trump said he sent his “warmest [sic] sympathies” to the victims of the mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch. He also seemed to downplay white supremacy violence as a problem.

With several surviving victims still in a critical condition, the death toll could rise in coming days.

Of course, Trump would be obliged to join in the international outpouring of condemnation over the barbaric cold-blooded act of mass murder. How could he not, given the shocking horror and depravity of the crime?

But his repeated nationalistic and nativist rhetoric as well as the ideologues whom he associates with make it very hard for Trump and his supporters to deny that there is a link between the White House occupant and the terrorist attack on Muslims in New Zealand, or white supremacist violence generally.

Supporters of Trump have scoffed at media claims made against Trump following the massacre insinuating the president is associated with “white nationalism” and thereby linked to the violence.

Admittedly, anti-Trump media in the US, such as CNN and MSNBC, will always seek every opportunity to undermine Trump. Nevertheless, on the point of Trump’s dalliance with extremist rightwing groups and their ideological memes there is a valid criticism to be made.

The alleged shooter in the New Zealand attack Friday was named as Brenton Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian citizen. He openly declared himself to be a fascist, avowing white supremacist ideology. In a so-called manifesto, the suspect refers to Trump as a “symbol of renewed white identity”.

More significantly, the themes the alleged murderer espouses are central to the Alt Right movement and numerous other white nationalist groups in the US and Europe, issues which Trump has also promoted for political gain.

The themes of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, white genocide by “invasion” or “replacement” by brown-skinned foreigners are run-of-the-mill talking points for far-right nationalist movements, which Trump has at times endorsed or given credence to.

Only days before the New Zealand massacre, Trump gave an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. The publication is a proponent of many of the themes surrounding fears of the “white race” being over-run by hordes of foreigners, and especially Muslim foreigners.

In his latest interview for Breitbart, Trump appeared to be inciting street violence by imploring his followers in the police and military to “get tough”. He tweeted a link to the publication. But following the horror in Christchurch, Trump deleted his tweet. That move suggests the president is fully aware of the toxic association with Breitbart at such a politically sensitive moment.

Trump and his supporters may try to play the innocent card, decrying what they would call are scurrilous attempt by the “liberal media” to bracket him with the violence of the far-right.

However, what else is one to conclude about Trump when he has personally amplified the touchstone causes of numerous fascist, white nationalist groups?

This week, Trump has pushed on with his border wall project. He has repeatedly sought to justify that project in sensationalist, scaremongering terms of preventing an “invasion” into the US from Mexico. The actual figures of migration over the southern border do not merit such high priority given by Trump to the “problem”. The proposed expenditure of $8-9 billion and declared state of emergency are “dog-whistling” techniques by Trump to mobilize far-right nationalist support.

Look at the people who associate with Trump. He may claim that their association is not reciprocated.

White neo-Nazi groups like Proud Boys and Alt Right have been hosted at Trump rallies. Alt Right leader Richard Spencer is partial to giving Nazi salutes at conferences and declaring “Hail Trump!”

David Duke, the grandmaster of the Klu Klux Klan, has publicly endorsed Trump.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s former political strategist in the White House, is a big proponent of the “replacement theory” whereby it is claimed that Muslim, African and other immigrants are “invading” the US and Europe to obliterate traditional white Christian communities. This was a prime motive for the alleged shooter in the New Zealand massacre. It was also a motive for the mass murder in 2011 by Norwegian neo-Nazi Anders Breivik.

Trump has taken up the cause of white South African farmers who claim that they are being expelled from colonial lands by the ruling ANC black government. This theme has also been taken up in Zimbabwe, and is a major touchstone issue for white supremacist, fascist groups around the world. For Trump to dally with the issue is an unmistakable sign of his witting – albeit tacit – support to such ideology, even though he may publicly try to distance himself at times, such as in the aftermath of the Christchurch atrocity.

Typically with Trump there are abundant contradictions. His son-in-law and special advisor Jared Kushner is Jewish. Yet Trump was accused of giving support to a “Unite the Right Rally” in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, where the torch-bearing marchers chanted slogans about not being replaced by Jews.

There seems little room for denial by Trump or his supporters about his links to the rise of extreme rightwing, white nationalist, fascist groups. His blanket ban on asylum-seekers from Muslim countries, his unhinged rhetoric about “invasion” by foreigners, and Trump’s association with racist, fascistic ideologues all put this president in the dock for incitement. The reckless rhetoric of Trump’s demagoguery is manifest in depraved actions such as the mass murder of 49 Muslims in New Zealand.

Trump can’t wash his hands after cynically dabbling in the cesspool of fascist ideology.

Islamophobia Is the Dominant Form of Racism: Why Is No One Talking About It?

Islamophobia Is the Dominant Form of Racism: Why Is No One Talking About It?

Written by Chris Nineham

Attacks on Islam and muslims are the central organising principles of far-right movements across Europe argues Chris Nineham

NoToIslamophobia

“Really confronting Islamophobia, challenging the logic of the Prevent programme for example, or explaining the causes of terrorism, requires challenging the logic of the wars and foreign interventions so dear to the British establishment. There are too few in public life who are prepared to do that.”


It shouldn’t really need to be pointed out given the evidence, but it does. Islamophobia is the dominant form of racism in British society and across much of Europe.

According to a recent survey, 25% of people in England believe that Islam is a dangerous religion that incites violence. According to the same research a shocking 52% believe that Islam poses a serious threat to Western civilisation.
Attacks on Islam and Muslims are the central organising principles of far-right movements across Europe. For Tommy Robinson for instance, Islam is the main enemy. His key mobilising issues are terrorism, grooming and the threat of sharia law. When he claims to be defending freedom of speech it is against a fantasy political correctness that he believes blocks discussion of these issues.
But the far-right are not the source of Islamophobia. They are feeding off the mainstream. Islamophobia is deeply embedded in the main political parties, central to media discourse and to the functioning of the key bodies of the state.
The Muslim Council of Britain have repeatedly pointed to the growing number of Islamophobic posts or comments by representatives of the Tory party – there were for example nine in just two months of last year. Despite this and the fact that 66% of Tory voters see Islam as a threat, the Tory leadership has consistently refused to launch the enquiry into Islamophobia that the MCB demands.
There is a problem in the Labour Party too – 22% of Labour voters also believe Islam is a danger to our lifestyle. Islamophobia is a far more prominent problem in British politics than anti-semitism, although this too is growing in society. Studies of the media show almost daily stereotyping and demonisation of Muslims and statistics of stop and search, arrest and imprisonment reveal systematic anti-Muslim attitudes in the police and the courts.
The so-called Prevent strategy attempts to mobilise workers in all sorts of other state institutions in an initiative that often assumes that Muslims are a danger to society. Meanwhile data shows that discrimination against Muslims extends across the economy. Muslims are half as likely as the rest of society to have permanent jobs for example.
So why is there no national debate about this scandalous situation? The first problem is denial. It’s not just that the issue is ignored, there are regular debates in the media as to whether Islamophobia actually exists. Worse still, Islamophobic attitudes are often dressed up as liberal critiques of aspects of some Muslim’s lifestyles or what is often, absurdly, regarded as a uniquely reactionary religion. Such attitudes adopted by liberals and sometimes by people who regard themselves as progressives only give confidence to the right. So when Boris Johnson made his disgraceful comments about women in Burqas looking like letterboxes he felt confident to justify them in terms of opposing women’s oppression, ‘if you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree’.
Racist attitudes are second nature to the British ruling class of course, and various forms of racism against people of Asian or African descent have a long and horrible history which continue to this day. But Islamophobia’s ability to present as cultural critique means that it is a racism that it is peculiarly convenient at a time when ‘biological’ racism is largely regarded as unacceptable.
It is a form of racism that can pretend not to be one. But this isn’t the only cause of the denial. Islamophobia is deeply structured into British society because it has played a central role in attempting to create the conditions in which the British elites can fight unpopular foreign wars, particularly in central Asia and the Middle East. A series of studies have mapped the rise of Islamophobia to geopolitics and Western foreign policy priorities, including the shock of the Iranian revolution, the US retreat from the Lebanon in 1984, and in a different way the end of Cold War.
Islamophobia went mainstream after the start of the War on Terror in 2001 when the US, Britain and its other allies turned towards massive military intervention against Afghanistan and then Iraq. The damage and bitterness caused by these invasions has predictably unleashed an intensifying cycle of violence that threatens to sustain racism against the people who we have murderously attacked in the first place. Really confronting Islamophobia, challenging the logic of the Prevent programme for example, or explaining the causes of terrorism, requires challenging the logic of the wars and foreign interventions so dear to the British establishment. There are too few in public life who are prepared to do that.
Islamophobia can be overcome. Social attitudes are very contradictory. Despite some popular prejudice, the vast majority want to see more measures to improve relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, including for example better access to language teaching. Overwhelming numbers of people oppose the foreign wars that successive governments have dragged us into and the fact that we have a leader the Labour Party who is anti-war, a principled and public anti-racist and takes Islamophobia very seriously is important in itself and a sign of widespread anti-racist attitudes in Britain.
One of the most inspirational and significant moments in recent British politics was during the 2017 election campaign when Jeremy Corbyn responded to the dreadful terrorist attacks in Manchester with a press conference in which he argued that the main cause of  terrorism was our foreign policy. To the shock of the Tories and the right wing in Labour the next day opinion polls showed that 75% of the population agreed with him. This was a moment when it became clear how the Islamophobic narrative can be unravelled.
To do so will require concerted action. We have to insist on the cultural, economic and institutional importance of Islamophobia. We have to make the fight against Islamophobia as central to our movement as it is to the thought and actions of the establishment and the far right. But as well as calling it out and confronting it we have to tackle its causes. Muslims will not feel really safe and at home in Britain until we stop bombing and intervening in Muslim countries and start developing a foreign policy based peace and respect

 

(Video): Mecca or Las Vegas? Why Saudis destroyed Islam’s holiest sites – English Subtitles

The destruction of sites associated with early Islam is an ongoing phenomenon that has occurred mainly in the Hejaz region of western Saudi Arabia, particularly around the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The demolition has focused on mosques, burial sites, homes and historical locations associated with the Islamic prophet Muhammad and many of the founding personalities of early Islamic history. In Saudi Arabia, many of the demolitions have officially been part of the continued expansion of the Masjid al-Haram at Mecca and the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina and their auxiliary service facilities in order to accommodate the ever-increasing number of people performing the pilgrimage.

Concerns are growing among Muslims as Saudi authorities plan to destroy the birthplace of Prophet Mohammad in the holy city of Mecca. Reports say under the plan, the historic site will be destroyed and replaced with a royal palace for King Abdullah for his visits to Mecca. The work is part of a multibillion-dollar construction project in the holy city which has already resulted in the destruction of hundreds of historic monuments. Saudi Officials claim that the plan aims to expand al-Masjid al-Haram, or the Grand Mosque to host more pilgrims. Riyadh is under fire for mass destruction of historic buildings in Mecca. Some reports say up to 95 percent of Mecca’s millennium-old buildings have been destroyed to be replaced with luxury hotels and shopping malls.

 

(Video): How British Empire & America gave rise to Kings of Saudi Arabia – English subtitles

Description:

Senior Arab political analyst and writer Anees Naqqash recounts how the British Empire played a decisive role in the creation and regional rise of the modern state of Saudi Arabia, and how the Americans later provided protection in exchange for control over Saudi oil.

According to Naqqash, who is a prominent feature on Lebanese and Arab media, the Saudi royal family has for decades been used by the British and Americans due to their political and economic expediency.

Naqqash was speaking at an event promoting his new book ‘A look at the course of future transformations to the Gulf’.

Source: Al-Wafa’a Islamic Party (YouTube)

Date: 6 October, 2018

Related Videos

Is Democracy Consistent with Islam?

Global Research, February 16, 2019

Most people are under the impression that democracy and Islam are somehow incompatible. However, I don’t see any contradiction between democracy and Islam, as such. Although, I admit, there is some friction between Islam and liberalism.

When we say there is a contradiction between Islam and democracy, we make a category mistake which is a serious logical fallacy. There is a fundamental difference between democracy and liberalism. Democracy falls in the category of politics and governance, whereas liberalism falls in the category of culture. We must be precise about the definitions of terms that we employ in political science.

Democracy is simply a representative political system that ensures representation, accountability and the right of electorate to vote governments in and to vote governments out. In this sense, when we use the term democracy, we mean a multi-party, representative political system that confers legitimacy upon a government which comes to power through an election process which is a contest between more than one political parties in order to ensure that it is voluntary. Thus, democracy is nothing more than a multi-party, representative political system.

Some normative scientists, however, get carried away in their enthusiasm and ascribe meanings to technical terminology which are quite subjective and fallacious. Some will use the adjective liberal to describe the essence of democracy as liberal democracy while others will arbitrarily call it informed or enlightened democracy. In my opinion, the only correct adjective that can be used to describe the essence of democracy is representative democracy.

After settling on theoretical aspect, let us now apply these concepts to the reality of practical world, and particularly to the phenomena of nascent democratic movements of the Arab Spring. It’s a fact that the ground realities of the Arab and Islamic worlds fall well short of the ideal liberal democratic model of the developed Western world.

However, there is a lot to be optimistic about. When the Arab Spring revolutions occurred in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen, and before the Arab Spring turned into an abysmal winter in Libya and Syria, some utopian dreamers were not too hopeful about the outcome of those movements.

Unlike the socialist revolutions of 1960s and 1970s, when the visionaries of yore used to have a magic wand of bringing about a fundamental structural change that would culminate into equitable distribution of wealth overnight, the neoliberal democratic movements of the present times are merely a step in the right direction that will usher the Arab and Islamic worlds into an era of relative peace and progress.

The Arab Spring movements are not led by the likes of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Jawahar Lal Nehru and other such charismatic messiahs that socialist thinkers are so fond of. But these revolutions are the grassroots movements of a society in transition from an abject stagnant state toward a dynamic and representative future.

Let us be clear about one thing first and foremost: any government – whether democratic or autocratic – would follow the same economic model under the contemporary global political and economic dispensation. It’s a growth-based neoliberal model as opposed to an equality-based socialist model. It’s a fact that the developing, Third World economies with large populations and meager resources cannot be compared with the social democracies of Scandinavian countries where per capita incomes are more than $40,000.

A question would naturally arise that what would the Arab Spring movements accomplish if the resultant democratic governments would follow the same old neoliberal and growth-centered economic policies? It should be kept in mind here that democracy is not the best of systems because it is the most efficient system of governance. Top-down autocracies are more efficient than democracies.

But democracy is a representative political system. It brings about a grassroots social change. Enfranchisement, representation, transparency, accountability, checks and balances, rule of law and consequent institution-building, nation-building and consistent long term policies; political stability and social prosperity are the rewards of representative democracy.

Immanuel Kant sagaciously posited that moral autonomy produces moral responsibility and social maturity. This social axiom can also be applied to politics and governance. Political autonomy and self-governance engender political responsibility and social maturity.

A top-down political system is dependent on the artificial external force that keeps it going. The moment that external force is removed, the society reverts back to its previous state and the system collapses. But a grassroots and bottom-up political system evolves naturally and intrinsically. We must not expect from the Arab Spring movements to produce results immediately. Bear in mind that the evolution of the Western culture and politics happened over a course of many centuries.

More to the point, the superficially “socialist” Arab revolutions of 1960s and 1970s only mobilized the elite classes. Some working classes might have been involved, but the tone and tenor of those revolutions was elitist and that’s the reason why those revolutions failed to produce desirable long-term results. The Arab Spring movements, by contrast, have mobilized the urban middle class of the Arab societies in the age of electronic media and information technology.

In the nutshell, if the Arab Spring movements are not about radical redistribution of wealth, or about creating a liberal utopia in the Middle East overnight, what is the goal of these movements then? Let me try to explain the objectives of the Arab Spring movements by way of an allegory.

Democracy is like a school and people are like children. We only have two choices: one, to keep people under paternalistic dictatorships; two, to admit them in the school of representative democracy and let them experience democracy as a lived reality rather than some stale and sterile theory. The first option will only breed stunted bigots, but the second option will engender an educated human resource that doesn’t just consume resources but also creates new resources.

Finally, I would like to clarify that the militant phenomena in Libya and Syria has been distinct and separate from the political and democratic phenomena of the Arab Spring movements as in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen.

A question arises that when political movements for enfranchisement turn violent, do their objectives cease to be legitimate? No, the objectives remain the same, but from a pacifist standpoint, we ought to make a distinction between political movements for democratic reforms, to which we should lend our moral support; and the militant phenomena, which must be avoided at any cost due to immense human suffering that proxy wars and military interventions anywhere in the world inevitably entail.

In legal jurisprudence, a distinction is generally drawn between lawful and unlawful assembly. It is the inalienable right of the people to peacefully assemble to press their demands for political reform. But the moment such protests become militarized and violent, they cease to be lawful.

Expecting from heavily armed militants, as in Libya and Syria, who have been described by the Western mainstream media as “moderate rebels,” to bring about political reform and positive social change is not only naïve but is bordering on insanity.*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Kodak Agfa

Mecca or Las Vegas? Why Saudis destroyed Islam’s holiest sites – English Subtitles

Source

Related

7 minutes 13:00 to 20:00

‘Martyrdom and Martyrdom’ & martyrdom: understanding Iran

August 09, 2018

by Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker Blog‘Martyrdom and Martyrdom’ & martyrdom: understanding Iran

“We are the nation of martyrdom, we are the nation of Imam Hossain, you better ask.” – Iranian Major General and Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani, July 27, 2018

That injunction for education was in response to US President Donald Trump’s threatening “all-caps tweet” to Iran. The exchange provides a rather timely news peg for this article, and it also confirms its necessity; this article relates the importance of Imam Hossain in modern Iranian society.

Despite the good advice, I doubt Trump will ask anyone about Imam Hossain, and it appears certain he lacks the intellectual stamina for “such a long” article.

The previous part of this series – ‘Cultural’ & ‘Permanent Revolution’ in Iranian Revolutionary Shi’ism – is rather necessary reading in order to understand this part…unless one is already familiar with the life and death of Imam Ali, is aware of the foundation of the Sunni-Shia intellectual schism, and also has (at least) an areligious historical perspective on the political situation of the early Islamic era immediately following the death of Prophet Mohammad. Hossain immediately followed Ali, his father, so such background knowledge will help one to fully grasp the historical-cultural-political-religious links presented here.

In this previous segments of this 11-part series I have mainly discussed facts: Why the World Socialist Web Site’s 3-part series claiming that “Islamic Socialism is a sham” is false and blind; how the centrally-planned economy of the Shahs paved the way for the socialist-inspired economy of the Islamic Republic of Iran; why “privatisation” in Iran is a misleading misnomer; and a 4-part sub-series on the Basij, a much-misunderstood institution which actually reflects the attempt of revolutionary Shi’ism to redistribute wealth and power to the poorer classes & to solidify support for Iran’s unique structure and culture.

While the goal of this series is to show how Iran is the ignored success story of socialism, it is also to shed light on the Western blackout of honest, accurate & balanced discussion on modern Iran. Therefore, I thought that discussions of Imams Ali and Hossain should have gone first, as they are the major motivating force of modern Iran…but that would have immediately turned off the receptivity towards learning new perspectives on Iran among the often anti-religion Western leftists. Therefore, I have saved these two religious-philosophical & cultural discussions for the end, because I wanted my discussion of Iran’s unique creations to be factual & structural and not philosophical. We can’t argue the clear facts which prove Iran’s socialism – not anymore.

But Iran’s (now totally-clear) socialist policies cannot be explained or understood solely by an intellectual lens of “socialism” – “socialism” does not fully explain the unique creation of the Basij, the unique creation of the post of Supreme Leader, the unique creation of the bonyads or state charity cooperatives to help run 10-15% of the economyetc. For full comprehension, religious-cultural knowledge must be added.

Because Iran is a unique (revolutionary) country, this means they have implemented policies which truly have no parallel. It also means the reasons for such policies are often not accepted by others, and even more rarely understood. The WSWS refuses to add in this component of “religion” – thus, their series could only falsely claim that Iran’s revolution was seemingly totally inspired by the Iranian Communist Tudeh Party, in a rather selective rewriting of history which aimed to marginalise the role of religion in Iran.

All of these unique (revolutionary) polices, structures and ideas can indeed be explained by socialism because they are socialist…but something crucial will still be lacking; one cannot fully understand them without clarifying additional philosophical, cultural and religious tenets which run deeper in Iran than the obviously vitally nourishing economic-democratic ideas of 19th-21st century socialism.

Is this more new scholarship linking Iran and socialism? Possibly, but links have already been made for many decades

The previous part drew the parallel – and quite likely for the first time ever – between Imam Ali’s failed “Cultural Revolution”, after the original political Revolution of Islam, and the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

Similarly, I cannot report finding internet links between Imam Hossain and the Trotskyist theory of “Permanent Revolution”, either.

However, I am not here to take credit. While I feel that Ali / China link was perhaps not able to be made in the heyday of the Iranian Revolution – as it is quite possible the true aims / goals / results of the Chinese Cultural Revolution were not known – the link between Hossain and “Permanent Revolution” was quite clearly obvious.

I contend that if I can’t find a record of this historical parallel being explicitly made there are clear reasons why:

The internet does not include the the cassette tapes, mosque lectures and fragile mimeographs which were the method of political communication in 1970s Iran.

Perhaps most Iranian thinkers wanted to give more credit to Islamic revolutionary figures, who were more relatable to the average Iranian.

The Revolution of 1979 was intensely patriotic: A repeated claim was that Iran already contained all it needed to have a modern, revolutionary, just society – holding up non-Iranian figures hurts that claim. And it’s not as if Trotsky, Mao or other foreigners were going to sue Iranians for using their ideas without attribution….

Iranian socialists were discredited-by-association in the 1980s by the horrific, detested, traitorous, totally illegitimate, most definitely NOT socialist cult known as the Mujahideen Khalq Organisation (known as the MKO or MEK, or People’s Mujahideen in English). Their unthinkable actions – stealing corpses to inflate body counts for propaganda purposes, fighting alongside Saddam, massacring Kurds, assassinating Iranian scientists, thousands of other terrorist acts, etc. – likely caused many to step away from proudly espousing the socialist intellectual lens which was so prevalent in the 1970s. It is mind-boggling to me that intelligent Western leftists ask me about the MKO as if they are some sort of viable leftist option in Iran…but it’s a big world, filled with too many insane cults – on the left, right and centre – to keep track of. The unforgivable MKO has also been gallingly whitewashed in the West by hundreds of millions of dollars from the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and France (where they are now headquartered). Support for the MKO on the part of West repeatedly sends the Iranian government into an absolute tizzy, and rightly so – it is proof of the West’s appalling and murderous intentions against Iran (as if more proof was needed….).

I will quote extensively, as in the previous part, from seminal Iranian Islamic revolutionary thinker Ali Shariati – I think readers will see for themselves how very clearly he adapted some key Trotskyist ideals in his modern portrayal of Imam Hossain. Whether Shariati admitted it or not, “Permanent Revolution” is all over his ideas, slogans, analyses, etc.

I can verify from personal discussions with older, politically active that (duh!) Trotsky was indeed one of the key figures on their minds in the 1970s and beyond.

But I am only a journalist reporting what I have found: the explicit link is not found, but I am both a poor journalist and poor researcher. I do not seriously expect Iranians to tell me that Imam Ali-Mao links were widely made, but I do expect them to tell me Imam Hossain – Trotsky links were.

Regardless, credit for linking Ali / China & Hossain / Trotsky – plus another $0.50 – will only get me a cup of coffee, as the saying goes (at least it did prior to inflation); the main thing is to understand modern Iran in order to promote human brotherhood.

The huge misunderstanding on ‘martyrdom’ between Iran and the West

It is often said that “self-sacrifice” and “martyrdom” are the main principles of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and Iranian society today…but this fact is of almost of no value to Westerners, because in 2018 there is a fundamental misunderstanding between the West and Iran on what “martyrdom” means and is.

Two parties cannot create mutual understanding if definitions of words are totally different. This article aims to rectify that.

But to do that, it is necessary for non-Muslims to learn about Imam Hossain, the grandson of Mohammad, the son of Imam Ali, and the 3rd Shia Caliph but who was not a Caliph for Sunni because Hossain was cheated out of it by Muawiyah, founder of the Umayyad dynasty and the 6th Sunni Caliph (this last statement is a universal historical consensus and not solely a Shia one – this was all explained in the previous part of this series).

In short: in 680 AD Imam Hossain (spelled Husayn or Hussein or Hossain in Arabic) marched off to certain death at Karbala, Iraq, rather than sanction the government of the Umayyad dynasty, which Imam Hossain and his father perceived as insufficiently Islamic and insufficiently revolutionary. This martyrdom has inspired a feeling of “Permanent Revolution” within Shia Iranians.

Many anti-religion leftists falsely assume this martyrdom was solely the result of a dispute on religious doctrine – I suppose it was, but I am 100% certain it was an intensely political act as well. Nobody is forcing anyone to accept the religious aspect – Islam can never be forced – and this means that non-Muslims can view Ali and Hossain in a purely political, areligious, historical context. But the widespread failure to do this has had huge consequences in modern political analysis.

The yearly pilgrimages to Karbala, Iraq, to commemorate Hossain are among the largest peaceful gatherings in human history. Even though 10-20 million people attend, they are totally ignored by Western media. That’s a pity, because even though “God is dead” to Western culture, the Arba’een pilgrimages shows how very, very, very living it is to Shia. Like that or not – this galvanising power cannot be ignored. As Soleimani said to Trump: “you better ask” about Hossain.

As I explained in the previous article, the Revolution of Islam was a sweeping & immediate political revolution as well as a revolution in religious thought and practice. This duality cannot be argued in the slightest, nor is there a single reason why they should be contradictory. Therefore, socio-cultural-historical parallels abound with other the great political revolutions in human history.

Non-Muslims and Westerners have much to glean politically from the Revolution of Islam, if they can only set aside their anti-religion bigotry. Again: one can examine the early Islamic age from an areligious perspective because it was a political & social revolution, unlike Christianity after the life or the death of Jesus son of Mary.

Regardless, the political structures and daily life in the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2018 cannot be understood without grasping the importance of Imam Hossain in our collective unconscious. Unlike Jesus in the secular West, Hossain is a constant, universal presence in Iran (and for the many non-Shia, as well), and a perpetual reminder of the need for moral political action.

The second, failed generation of Islamic revolutionaries

As the previous article described, to many Iranian thinkers like Ali Shariati, after Prophet Mohammad’s death Islam was literally hijacked by slackening revolutionaries who forgot the socio-political message of Mohammad in order to create the imperialist Umayyad empire.

In 656 Imam Ali became Caliph and tried to stop this ideological and religious slackening, and thus represents, in modern terms, the Cultural Revolution in the Revolution of Islam, just as China had a Cultural Revolution years after their Chinese Communist Revolution (or quite similar to how Iran had the world’s only other official Cultural Revolution, from 1980-83).

But, in 661 Ali is assassinated. Ali’s son Imam Hassan becomes the Caliph (the 5th to Sunnis, the 2nd to Shia) but he has inherited a shattered administration. He is forced to abdicate to the politically & militarily powerful governor of largely Christian Damascus, Muawiyah, who is declared Caliph. The wishes of Mohammad are denied, the bloodline of Mohammad is broken, and the officially-secular & imperialist Umayyad dynasty is founded.

Imam Hassan, daughter of Mohammad’s daughter Fatima and Imam Ali, retires to Medina and dies in 670. After Ali’s death Umayyad clerics spent 60+ years making state-ordered ritual curses of Ali during public prayers, so Hassan was clearly in a very weak position. When he dies he is even denied burial next to his grandfather, Prophet Mohammad, and his relatives in Medina. I quote from Ali Shariati’s Martyrdom and Martyrdom:

“Imam Hassan, the manifestation of loneliness and isolation in Islamic Society, even in the Medina of the Prophet, clearly shows how the Truth-seeking party in Islam is utterly shattered. The new force of revolution completely overwhelms everyone and everything and conquers in every domain. Now it is Hossain’s turn.”

That “new force” is those who split off to create Sunni Islam, which is why the Shia Shariati continues, unequivocally:

“Hossain inherits the Islamic movement. He is the inheritor of a movement which Mohammed has launched, Ali has continued and in whose defence Hassan makes the last defence. Now there is nothing left for Hossain to inherit: no army, no weapons, no wealth, no power, no force, not even an organized following. Nothing at all. ”

Not only does the first two sentences of that paragraph name nearly all the males in my family, but it should emphatically make clear the historical-ideological view of Shia Islam, and how it obviously sharply differs from Sunnis.

The post-Mohammad era: When Shi’ism was truly an underground & political movement

Just as I wondered if Mao had any idea of Imam Ali’s message of Cultural Revolution, I wonder if Lenin had any idea of what Hossain stood for? I rather doubt it, but I’m certain the he, too, would have approved.

To paraphrase Shariati, who is paraphrasing Lenin: Hossain and the very few true revolutionaries are aware that the revolution is being compromised, and are asking – “What should be done?”

Certainly, there were no lack of ideas of appeasement being flung at Hossain: fatalism (God wishes it this way), are you so innocent that you can rectify the whole community, jihad is not the only path to God, asceticism is so personally pleasing, don’t oppose a Damascus which is spreading Islam, people judge by what they see so Islam must show a rich face to the Byzantine Romans and Persians to win them over, many temples and churches have been replaced by mosques, Islam is gaining in importance, Muslims are getting the top jobs, don’t cause trouble when there is Holy War against Christians in Europe and Zoroastrians in Iran, opposing those aristocrats is unrealistic and combative, we must win over our own aristocrats, do not mix earthly matters with heavenly ones, etc.

It all adds up to a call of: support the ruling system, and end your idealistic, permanent revolution.

This is something rejected by revolutionary Shi’ism, because the results of such a choice are clear:

Sixty years have passed since the migration of the Prophet. Everything earned by the Revolution has been destroyed. All of the successes earned a century before have been abolished. The Book brought by the Prophet is placed on the spears of the Umayyad (literally, during their first war against Imam Ali). The culture and ideas which Islam had developed through jihad, struggle and efforts in the hearts and minds of the people became a means for explaining the Umayyads rule.

Yes. In these black times the ignorance of aristocracy is being revived. Power is being dressed in piety and sacredness. The desires for liberty and equality created by Islam in the hearts of those sacrificed for power or policy are breaking down. Tribal (sectarian) ignorance has replaced the humanitarian revolution.

Jihad has become the means for massacre. Religious taxes are a means of public plunder. Prayer is a means of deceiving the public. Unity has been covered with the mass of profanity. Islam has become a chain of surrendering.

Nations are being taken into slavery as before.”

Obviously, Marxist- and socialist-inspired condemnations abound, as is the desire for modern revolution.

It is perhaps natural that when the Iranian Shia Shariati focuses on the 50-year period between the death Mohammad until the martyrdom of Hossain – from 632 until 680 – he is intensely critical of the lack of political revolutionary commitment on the part of the entire second revolutionary generation except for what is a very real “Shiite Resistance Movement”, which is truly an underground political phenomenon.

Imam Hossain answers Lenin’s question

In 680 the Caliph Muawiyah dies. Muawiyah’s betrayal of the House of Mohammad culminated in the handing of the caliphate to his son, Yazid. This ended the consultative and democratic caliphate and inaugurated monarchy and the Umayyad dynasty.

Yazid would go on to commit terrible atrocities at the Battle of Al-Harrah, which led to the looting of Medina by the Syrian army in 683, and then even an unthinkable siege of Mecca, leading to the burning of the Kabaa. The siege only ended when Yazid died from falling off his horse. These acts obviously damaged Umayyad authority among the People and strengthened the argument of the early Shia.

By 750 the Iranian-Iraqi Abbasid Revolution would kick the Umayyads out of the entire Middle East, while the Great Berber Revolt had kicked them out of the Maghreb just a few years prior. West and East Africa were not yet Muslim at this time.

The ethnic (Arab) elitists but religiously-tolerant Umayyads only found fertile soil in Europe, ruling Spain for several centuries. The Abbasid Caliphate would rule Islam for five centuries, replacing the feudal Arab Caliphate with a multi-ethnic, religiously tolerant Islamic Golden Age that lasted until the Mongol Invasion in 1258. The Mamluks of Egypt fought off the Mongols, thus sparing not just the Maghreb but all of Africa, and also allowing the Abbasids to re-center the Caliphate (religiously, but not politically) until the Ottoman conquest in 1517.

Thus a truly “Muslim World” – one in which unity is based only on Islam and not Arab ethnicity & Islam – does not begin until after the Umayyads. Shia obviously feel that Imam Ali and Imam Hossain perceived this sooner than anyone.

Shariati describes the view of Hossain back in 680: Hossain surely foresaw the crumbling of the Umayyad’s legitimacy – due to an obvious slackening of revolutionary integrity, the corruption of revolutionary ideals and culture, and the renunciation of political & social involvement;

“Imam Hossain, as a responsible leader, sees that if he remains silent, Islam will change into a religion of the government. Islam will be changed into a military-economic power and nothing more. Islam will become as other regimes and powers.

He is alone, unarmed. Opposing him is one of the most savage empires of the world which is being covered over by the fairest and most deceiving cover of piety, sacredness and unity which the ruling power possesses. He is alone. He is a lonely man who is responsible to this school of thought.

Whoever is more aware is more responsible, and who is more aware than Imam Hossain? What is his responsibility? He is responsible to fight against the elimination of the truth, the destruction of the rights of the people, annihilation of all of the values, abolition of all of the memories of the Revolution, destruction of the message of the Revolution, and to protect the most beloved of cultures and the faith of the people, for their destruction is the aim of the most filthy enemies of the people. They want to once again create the unknown, mysterious deaths, exiles, putting people in chains; the worshipping of pleasure, discriminations, the gathering of wealth; the selling of human values, faith, honor, creating new religious foolishness, racism, new aristocracy, new ignorance and a new polytheism.”

It’s a powerful historical analysis, and one which combines modern, socialist-inspired political thought with Abrahamic morality. The Shah had obviously re-created these evils, but it’s clear that just toppling a tyrant is no guarantee of revolution.

It should thus be clear how Iranian Revolutionary Shi’ism was created, how it was shaped by the lenses of socialism, and why it galvanised mullahs and masses far more than the Tudeh Party ever did.

But Hossain was totally weakened and could not depose the powers in Damascus. Therefore, he used his one weapon – his certain, aware death at Karbala.

The death of Imam Hossain – the birth of ‘living artists’ in the future

Hossain, then in Mecca, was invited by the people of Kufa, Iraq, (the future first seat of the Abbasid Caliphate 70 years later, showing they maintained their revolutionary zeal & culture ) to be their leader. Kufans had come around after 20 years of rule by Muawiyah. Hossain accepts.

However, Hossain gets word that Yazid’s troops were killing his sympathisers and blocking the gates – going to Kufa thus means certain death, given Hossain’s lack of power and resources.

Imam Hossain had two choices: go to Medina and swear allegiance to the new Umayyad dynasty, or march to the certain death at Kufa. Sanctioning imperialism is never Islamic, nor a modern revolution. Seventy kilometres from the Kufa gate Hossain’s band of family and loyal companions, 72 people, chose to fight the Battle of Karbala.

“He leaves Mecca to reply to the question, ‘How?’… (to) all those who can see, feel, understand and thus suffered and felt themselves responsible, who are thus looking for a revolution, (and) are then asking “What should be done?”

Clearly, the aware death of Hossain was selected by revolutionary Shi’ism as a direct answer to the title of Lenin’s famous pamphlet, which he took from a Russian book from 1863 which called for socialist self-sacrifice (martyrdom, to Iranians).

I quote Shariati at some length, because I cannot decide what should be omitted, and also because Western readers must drastically re-orient their conception of the word “martyrdom” if they want to understand the Shia and Iranian version (and the version very close to Sunni Muslims, as well.)

“The great teacher of martyrdom has now arisen in order to teach those who consider jihad to relate only to those who have the ability, and victory to be only in conquering. Martyrdom is not a loss, it is a choice. A choice where by the warrior sacrifices himself on the threshold of the temple of freedom and the altar of love, and is victorious.

Hossain, the heir of Adam, who gives life to the children of mankind, and the successor of the great prophets, who taught mankind ‘how to live’, has now come to teach mankind ‘how to die’.

Hossain teaches that ‘black death’ is the miserable fate of a humbled people who accept scorn in order to remain alive. For death chooses those who are not brave enough to choose martyrdom. Death chooses them!

The word shahid, martyr, contains the highest form of what I am saying. It means being present; bearing witness; one who bears witness. It also means that which is sensible and perceptible; the one whom all turn towards. Finally it means model, pattern, example.

Martyrdom: to arise and bear witness in our culture and in our religion is not a bloody and accidental happening. In other religions and tribal histories, martyrdom is the sacrificing of the heroes who are killed in the battles of the enemy. It is considered to be a sorrowful accident, full of misery. Those who are killed in this way are called martyrs and their death is called martyrdom.

But in our culture, martyrdom is not a death which is imposed by an enemy upon our warriors. It is a death which is desired by our warrior, selected with all of the awareness, logic, reasoning, intelligence, understanding, consciousness and alertness that a human being has.

Look at Hossain. He releases his life, leaves his town and arises in order to die because he has no other means for his struggle to condemn and disgrace his enemy. He selects this in order to render aside the deceiving curtains which covered the ugly faces of the ruling power. If he cannot defeat the enemy in this way, at least he can disgrace them. If he cannot conquer the ruling power, he can at least condemn it by injecting new blood and the belief of jihad into the dead bodies of the second-generation of the Revolution revealed to the Prophet.

Quite a passage – far from being a tragedy or a screaming kamikaze pilot hopped up on speed, Iranian martyrdom is based on intelligent and sensitive awareness. It is obviously highly political, and contains an urgent and progressive (anti-reactionary) political message.

In summary, in our culture – contrary to other schools where it is considered to be an accident, an involvement, a death imposed upon a hero, a tragedy – (it) is a grade, a level, a rank. It is not a means but is a goal itself. It is originality. It is a completion. It is a lift. It itself is midway to the highest peak of humanity and it is a culture.”

This is the “martyrdom” which is imbued in Iranian culture. How imbued is it? Iranians hear the word multiple times daily in the common greeting between two friends or even two strangers: “Gorban-e-shoma” (“I will be your martyr”). Many Iranians will say that I am over-exaggerating the literal importance of this phrase, but that IS the literal translation. To me, commonplace linguistic phrases reveal a culture’s true soul; but it is true that nobody is really promising immediate martyrdom on the other’s behalf.

(I always thought this Farsi phrase grew out of Koran 4:86 – “Answer a greeting in kinder words than those said to you in their greeting, or at least as kind. God keeps account of all things.” What could be a kinder greeting to a total stranger than promising to die for them?)

However, only the thick-headed would imagine Iranian martyrdom to be only concerned with death – such a society would quickly empty itself of inhabitants.

Martyrdom is also the constant little sacrifices of one’s individual well-being for the sake of society, and in much, much less drastic forms than death. Martyrdom essentially exists in order to activate the “living artist” who improves society by moving beyond mere individualism.

Martyrdom and Martyrdom and ANOTHER Martyrdom

“In European countries the word ‘martyr’ stems from ‘mortal’ which means ‘death’ or ‘to die’. One of the basic principles in Islam and in particular in Shiite culture, however, is ‘sacrifice and bear witness’. So instead of martrydom, i.e. death, it essentially means ‘life’, ‘evidence’, ‘testify’, ‘certify’.”

Martyrdom is, of course, one of the central messages of Jesus to Christians…but not as significantly to Muslims, however: the Koran explicitly rejects the idea that God could allow a messenger and prophet of God to be killed in such a way. Indeed, for Islam Jesus was not killed on the cross – it was only made to appear that way by God. In Islam faith always wins over evil, therefore the death of Jesus on the cross is illogical – how could Jesus’ executioners have won?

That is a complicated issue, but bringing it up helps us clarify the roots of the difference in the meaning of “martyrdom” to Muslims and Westerners. It also helps illuminate why the martyrdom of Imam Hossain is so important in Islam – he is essentially the primary Abrahamic martyr to Muslims.

But I think Shariati rather significantly misunderstands “martyrdom” as defined in the West. Although he is correct that they view it in a far more negative fashion than in Islam, I think Shariati’s view is wrong by failing to include two key points:

Firstly, Shariati does not acknowledge that – for Christians themselves – there is also a positive message of Jesus’ martyrdom: which is, that the key is to emulate Jesus when it comes to his martyrdom.

However, I believe that West European Christians (not East European) have proven incapable of grasping this positive message. Therefore, the point is moot for the Western half of the continent.

Secondly, Shariati did not grasp that many West Europeans mistakenly appear to think that because Jesus died for our sins, Jesus thus ended the need for more martyrdom. This quite significantly compounds the disagreeableness of “martyrdom” to Westerners.

Indeed, “martyr” is a term used only to disparage in Western European cultures. The only time one hears it in English is in the phrase “Don’t be a martyr”. The word and concept are similarly totally absent in French.

The word “martyr” is never even used to describe who has died unjustly (the primary view in Sunni cultures) – not for a Palestinian protester killed by Zionists, nor a Jew killed in the Holocaust.

For the West, I believe that martyrdom has evolved to mean “an unnecessary exaggeration of suffering” – as though you are pretentiously claiming that you are doing something on the level of Jesus Christ. When it comes to martyrdom in the West the message is unambiguous: don’t do it at any time. As I am aware of the Iranian version and its elevation of martyrdom, I always found this cultural difference quite, quite surprising.

I think the negative Western view reveals two flaws, as martyrdom is clearly a positive thing: a fundamental cultural indifference to unjust suffering, at least when compared with Muslim and Iranian culture, and also a distaste for suffering on behalf of any cause. The latter observation is caused by the rampant individualism of the capitalist West: anyone suffering for a cause necessarily and annoyingly reminds them of their fundamentally self-centred lives – thus their society discourages it.

There is also rampant nihilism in the West, which is not at all the same as religious fatalism, and which is yet another cause of their distaste for martyrdom: if all is pointless, why die for anything? Martyrdom is thus negatively associated with a needless death, when for Sunni Muslims martyrdom is associated with an unjust death, and for Shia it is associated with a selfless death.

Thus Westerners view “martyrdom” as both a needless death as well as a negative, self-aggrandising act, while Sunnis view it positively but primarily as an act of injustice, whereas Shia & Iranians view martyrdom as a necessary, positive way to effectuate social change. Therefore, we really are talking about “Martyrdom and Martyrdom and Martyrdom”.

Martyrdom to Iranians is thus actually the equivalent of English “altruism”.

But, just like martyrdom, altruism conflicts with Western capitalist-imperialist ideology, as it is the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

We should thus not be surprised that “altruism” is a word which almost never heard in Western daily discourse, nor in their political discourse.

Therefore, even prior to Basij teenagers being forced into wartime self-sacrifice by Western aggression, “martyr” was something with negative connotations for Westerners and positive connotations for Iranians.

The Western denigration of martyrdom forces the denigration of Iranian revolutionary Shi’ism

This Iranian conception of “martyrdom” should explain much in the first 8 parts of this series, no?

Why wage revolution against the Shah for decades? Why sit in opposition to East and West? Why be so uncaring of Western public opinion? Why be so stridently revolutionary? Why condemn Israel when it only reaps trouble? Why give 15% of the economy to charity foundations? Why create the Basij? Why refuse to participate in the dominant neoliberal ideology of global imperialist capitalism?

I cannot see the Iranians agreeing to continue to suffer while Tehran continues to finance foreign movements like Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Houthis in Yemen,” Jean-François Seznec, professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University, told France24 media just yesterday. You can’t see it, really, Mr. Hotshot professor? I can, because I understand the Iranian conception of “martyrdom” – you clearly are another clueless academic.

(And I know that polls show that all of these non-Iranian revolutionary movements – as well as in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere – are massively supported in a democratic majority in Iran).

Martyrdom – in the unique Iranian definition, of course – is a large part of the answer to all those questions I just posed. Whatever the West wants to hide, forget or put a smiling capitalist-imperialist face on – Iran chooses martyrdom, or would like to.

So we must relearn what Iran means by “martyrdom” – they are talking about “Iranian Shia martyrdom”. The right terms in English are really: self-sacrifice, altruism, social justice.

These desires explain why 10-25 million Iranians have joined the Basij – for the overwhelmingly majority it is essentially just a social hobby which encourages (moderate, dull) self-sacrifice for societal betterment. You do get some social and monetary benefits, which are especially of importance to the lower class, but for many Basiji it also fills this emotional need that “I need to martyr some of myself and my time for others”. This emotional need exists exactly the same in the West, but it does not exist in the same intensity, nor does it exist in a government-supported form.

The West, with their different definition of “martyrdom”, and in combination with their hatred of socialism & Islamic democracy, wants people to believe that Iranian “martrydom” is all wild-eyed death when it it is 99.9% the mere provision of some rather mundane civil service / community improvement instead of watching TV. Iranian are not THAT great at being martyrs!

Yet the West hears “martyr” and assumes the worst about those who support Iranian revolutionary Shi’ism,

For an example, I return to the book on the Basij I reviewed in this series, Captive Society, by Saied Golkar. It is the only book ever written about the Basij in the West, but it is clearly a book which is against the Basij.

Golkar is discussing the WSBO – the Women’s Society Basij Organization, which is the main Basij group for women.

“The ideal family, which is promoted by the WSBO, is called the Islamic Revolutionary family or ‘family of holy defense’. The Islamic revolutionary family has specific features, according to WSBO head Minoo Aslani. The family is the place of modesty and chastity, where women take moral care of their family members. It is a place where women encourage charitable and spiritual affairs among their children and husbands, and where women should speak about religion and the Islamic Revolution.”

To many this is a happy, typical, politically-modern home concerned with moral social conduct. For Westerners and those who oppose modern Iran – this is some sort of horror, because the government should never get involved with these types of values, as they are purely personal (and thus should vary extremely wildly, apparently).

Golkar thus descends into fear-mongering, and surely finds plenty of receptive minds in the West: Golkar refers to a scholar which labelled this kind of family a “martyropath family”. He believes that Basij women are being brainwashed into training a “martyropath,” or a person who is enchanted by death and wants to die to preserve Iran.

To me the only “-path” of any sort here is Golkar, for so obviously trying to portray Basij families as fascist psychopaths. It is incredible that this supposedly-objective scholar is trying to portray a “martyropath” as a credible description of an average Basiji.

But this is what people always do with Iran – they portray them as insane, death-loving, religious fundamentalists instead of human beings.

No Iranian woman (who does not belong in a mental institution) trains their child for martyrdom – they only train their children to be altruistic and selfless. There should be no doubt that in probably every single case of martyrdom known to man, it was ultimately done against the mother’s wishes (and a father’s). I am not a parent myself, but I think any parent would immediately agree with that.

As has been reported for the case of martyrs in Iran during the Iraq war: to choose a martyr’s death is a lonely and individual decision, and families did their best to stop it. However, this does not mean that – after the deed was done – families did not also see the glory in the death of defending their community, family, nation; this is no different than in any other nation with any of their soldiers.

The reality is this: Basiji women are merely being encouraged to be modern revolutionaries, and that is what is frightening to the counter-revolutionary West.

Just as there is a downside to the West’s “never martyrdom” approach, there is a downside to Shia Iran’s “martyrdom please” approach as well. For example, missing a couple meals during Ramadan does not make one the world’s greatest Muslim martyr. It is quite easy for Iranians to puff themselves up as great Muslims and revolutionaries because they have mentally accumulated 10 million insignificant instances of where they put the needs of someone else first, i.e., simply done the right thing. If any culture could break their own arms from patting themselves on their own backs, it is Iran.

However, a society full of martyrs is certainly far, far more desirable than a society full of self-serving individualists, no? This is essentially the point to take away from this article, I think.

The message of Imam Hossain remains a political beacon

The willful ignorance of the revolutionary, unique and socialist-inspired structures of revolutionary Shi’ism which created Iranian Islamic Socialism is only dangerous for Westerners: they are the ones who are misled about the nature of modern Iran; they are the ones who have such a terrified, “Muslim martyropaths will get me” worldview; they are the ones who are deluded by the paranoia that it is Iran which is targeting them and not the other way around; and they are the ones whose societies are worsened by the failure to transplant some of Iran’s unique solutions to modern problems in their own country; I could go on and on listing such problems.

It should be now quite clear that Iranians have re-intepreted the martyrdom of Imam Hossain to coincide with something quite similar to the Trotskyist socialist concept of “permanent revolution”.

We should see how something like the Basij – whether one approves of them or not, and I am officially neutral on their value – clearly was originally created to try and incarnate this idea of Perpetual Revolution for which Trotsky (and Lenin and other socialists) had different yet very similar notions. By constantly recruiting new members, training them in modern revolutionary Shi’ism and granting them affirmative action spots in the universities and government, it is clear that they are an effort to constantly refresh the Islamic Revolution and to constantly reshape Iranian culture in favor of Iranian Islamic Socialism. Again, I merely condense here the objective conclusions proven in my 4-part sub-series on the Basij and do not judge nor promote.

Obviously, revolutionary Shi’ism did not sprout overnight, nor did it need a war to make its values widespread; it has all existed in Iran for some time, yet it was the Islamic Republic of Iran which made these the officially-sanctioned values of the government for the first time ever.

Hopefully people will realize that Iranian “martyrdom” and its “permanent revolution” is something which is based both on ancient sources of unimpeachable morality as well as the unimpeachable modern political ideas of democratic progress and economic equality. The slogans of 1979 – “Every place is Karbala!” and “The martyr is the heart of human history! – reflect this reality.

“Every place is Petrograd” and “The revolutionary is the heart of human history” could have been taken from Trotsky.

Agree with Iranians or not, modern Iran is indeed revolutionary, and thus quite in keeping with its ideological heroes – Prophet Mohammad, Imam Ali, Imam Hossain, Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Castro, Algeria and others. It is clear who deserves top billing; it’s amazing that Western leftists still do not even know the cast of main characters…but that is out of ignorance or willful blindness.

I hope these articles have also shown that one need not be an Iranian nor a Muslim to accept that the Iranian Revolution is proof that Islam can be a progressive revolutionary force once again. One also does not have to be a Muslim to see that socialism will not advance globally without first accepting those facts.

***********************************

This is the 9th article in an 11-part series which explains the economics, history, religion and culture of Iran’s Revolutionary Shi’ism, which produced modern Iranian Islamic Socialism.

Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

The WSWS, Irans economy, the Basij & Revolutionary Shiism: an 11-part series

How Iran Got Economically Socialist, and then Islamic Socialist

What privatisation in Iran? or Definitely not THAT privatisation

Parallels between Irans Basij and the Chinese Communist Party

Irans Basij: The reason why land or civil war inside Iran is impossible

A leftist analysis of Irans Basij – likely the first ever in the West

Irans Basij: Restructuring society and/or class warfare

Cultural’ Permanent Revolution’ in Iranian Revolutionary Shiism

‘Martyrdom and Martyrdom’ & martyrdom: understanding Iran

‘The Death of Yazdgerd’: The greatest political movie ever explains Iran’s revolution (available with English subtitles for free on Youtube here)

Iran détente after Trump’s JCPOA pull out? We can wait 2 more years, or 6, or…

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.

The Essential Saker II
The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
The Essential Saker
The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

Dr. Kevin Barrett and Gilad Atzmon on Phobias and Politics

July 18, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

phobia.jpg

https://www.patreon.com/

Introduction by Dr. Kevin Barrett

In his new article “Silencing Diversity in the Name of Diversity” Gilad Atzmon argues Frankfurt School driven identity politics represents “a well-orchestrated attempt to obliterate our Western Athenian ethos in favor of a new Jerusalemite regime of ‘correctness.’”

Gilad’s new article was inspired by the Deep Truth Conference Zionism panel that he and I participated in. (Here is the link to the whole conference.)

In the new article, Gilad writes:

‘Phobia’ is defined as an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Accordingly, the notion of ‘Islamophobia,’ attributes irrationality or even madness to those who oppose Muslims and Islam….But fear of Muslims might be rational. As things stand, we in the West have been actively engaged in the destruction of Muslims and their countries for at least a century.”

Gilad’s point—that we need to distinguish rational from irrational elements of Islamophobia, Judeophobia, homophobia, etc.—is well taken. But if we accept his invitation and ask ourselves “how rational is the Islamophobia around us” we discover that it is almost entirely irrational. While the West has indeed been “actively engaged in the destruction of Muslims,” the chances that any given Western person will suffer or die in a Muslim revenge attack are essentially zero. (Terrorism is statistically a non-threat, far less dangerous than bathtubs and lightning, and Muslims commit less than 5% of the terrorist attacks in the West.) An American who fears Muslims because the West has been destroying Muslims is just as crazy as an American who fears Native Americans or Blacks or Chinese or Hindus or Buddhists because of the crimes of the West against those groups.

It is, of course, conceivable that some Muslim or Muslims (or Native Americans, Blacks, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) will one day manage to wreak such massive revenge against the West, perhaps though a bioweapon targeting white people, that in retrospect fear of whichever group the “terrorist” emerged from will seem rational. But obviously hating on people today will not prevent such an attack tomorrow! On the contrary, it will make it more likely. Considered rationally, the Islamophobic discourse, which is actually a discourse of hate more than fear, is obviously counterproductive in terms of defusing the rather vague, nebulous, and improbable potential threats that might emerge from “angry Muslims” (or angry Native Americans, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.)

While ordinary Western people have no rational reason for Islamophobia, Zionist and neoliberal elites have good reasons to fear Islam. Muslims are the backbone of opposition to Zionism and usury, both of which are crucial to the neoliberal financier elites. To the extent that Islam triumphs, the Zionists and usury banksters will lose their ill-gotten gains along with most of their power and privileges. So the Zionist elite’s decision to orchestrate 9/11 in order to brainwash ordinary people into irrationally hating Islam was indeed rational, given that elite’s desire to maintain and expand its power and privileges.

 

political correctness

Silencing Diversity in the Name of Diversity

July 16, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

islamophbia_edited-1.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

In my latest book, Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I explored different tactics used by the New Left – a loose collective of Frankfurt School graduates — to destroy political diversity and intellectual exchange.  I concluded that the ‘new order’ is maintained by ensuring that so-called ‘correctness’ dominates our vocabulary.  We are drowning in jargon, slogans and sound bites designed to suppress authentic thinking and more important, to suppress humane intellectual exchange. As I finished writing the book, I understood that this new language is a well-orchestrated attempt to obliterate our Western Athenian ethos in favor of a new Jerusalemite regime of ‘correctness.’

Yesterday I was interviewed  by Pakistani Journalist Tazeen Hasan. She was interested in my take on Islamophobia.  Hasan, I guess, expected me to denounce Islamophobia.  Since I am opposed to any form of bigotry*, hatred of Muslims is no exception. Though I am obviously troubled and strongly disagree with the views that are voiced with the so-called ‘Islamophbes,’  I am also troubled by the notion of ‘Islamophobia’. As opposed to the Identitarian Left, I contend that we humans should seek what unites us as humans. We should refuse to be shoved into biologically oriented (like gender, skin colour, sexual orientation etc.) boxes. I was probably expected to criticise Islamophobia by recycling a few tired slogans, but that was not my approach to the question. Instead of dealing with ‘Islamophobia,’ I decided that we should first dissect the notion of ‘phobia.’ I asked why some activists attribute ‘phobic’ inclinations (Islamophobia, homophobia, Judeophobia, etc.) to those with whom they disagree.

‘Phobia’ is defined as an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Accordingly, the notion of ‘Islamophobia,’ attributes irrationality or even madness to those who oppose Muslims and Islam. It suggests that ‘fear of Islam’ is an irrational hatred. This turns Islamophobia into a crazy fear of Islam that doesn’t deserve intellectual scrutiny, let alone an intellectual debate.

But fear of Musilms might be rational. As things stand, we in the West have been actively engaged in the destruction of Muslims and their countries for at least a century. We plunder their resources, we invade their lands, and we even gave some of their land to the so called ‘people of the book,’ and when those people committed a brutal ethnic cleansing, consistent with their ‘book,’ the West turned a blind eye. For the last three decades this genocidal war against Muslims and Arabs has intensified and become an official Western policy. This transition is the achievement of the Neocon school, who have attempted to redefine Zionism as the struggle for a promised planet instead of just a promised land. 

 Within the context of the global war we have declared on Muslims and Arabs on behalf of Zion, in the name of Coca Cola and Gay Rights, it is rational to expect that at some point Muslims may retaliate. So those who fear Muslims are not necessarily crazy or mad, they may even be more ethically aware or even guilt ridden than the progressives who castigate them for having ‘phobias’.’ If we are looking to dismantle ‘Islamic danger’  then we should find a rational and peaceful solution to the war we declared on Muslims. It will be probably more effective not to drop bombs on Arabs than to label fear of Muslims as irrational. Obliterating Israel’s nuclear facilities could also be a reasonable path to peace. A total embargo on Israel would probably be  the most effective way to calm the Middle East. That would certainly induce some deep thinking in the Jewish State that has been the catalyst in this developing global war.

It seems the term ‘phobia’ is routinely attached to anyone who disagrees with the new order. Are all those who oppose gay rights driven by ‘phobia’? Is it really ‘irrational’ for pious people (Christians, Muslims and Jews, etc.) to detect that gay culture may interfere with their churches or family values? Instead of addressing these conservative concerns, the New Left prefers to employ tyrannical abusive language designed to delegitimise the opposition. Similarly, those who look into organised Jewry and its political lobbying are reduced to ‘Judeophobes.’  But given the growing number of studies of the domineering effect of the Jewish Lobby in the USA, Britain and France, is it really ‘irrational’ or an act of ‘madness’ to scrutinise this lobby’s activity and the culture that fuels it?

However, in spite of these Orwellian ‘phobic’ tactics, awareness of its effects has grown. Increasingly, people see that the New Left corrosive agenda is driving these divisive Identitarian tactics. The tyrannical regime of correctness is a Machiavellian operation that in the name of ‘diversity,’ attempts to eliminate diversity all together. It dismisses the concerns of the so called ‘enemy’ by labelling them as irrational fears.

My message here is simple. The war against us is facilitated by cultural means. We are constantly subjected to terminological manipulations. To win this war we must first spot the terminological shifts as they appear. Then we have to identify those who put such manipulative tactics into play.

To support Gilad’s legal costs

The Future of Europe Is Civil War

The Future of Europe Is Civil War

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 09.04.2018

The Future of Europe Is Civil War

Ash SHARP

Europe is committing suicide – or at least it’s leaders have decided to commit suicide. Whether European people decide to go along with this is, naturally, another matter. ~ Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe

Europe is my home. It is where I live. Everything I value is here – on this continent. Everything I love and will suffer to lose is here. My country, separate, slightly odd, provincial and uncool; Brexit Britain, land of bad food and uncharitable reputations on dental hygiene and house cleanliness, is a European country too. God knows it is a conflicted time to be an Englishman abroad. God knows it hurts to look at the goldfish bowl from outside. Yesterday brought the story of 78-year-old Richard Osborne-Brooks.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said:

‘At 00:45hrs on Wednesday, 4 April, police were called by a homeowner to reports of a burglary in progress at an address in South Park Crescent, Hither Green SE6, and a man injured.

‘The 78-year-old resident found two males inside the address. A struggle ensued between one of the males and the homeowner. The man, aged 38, sustained a stab wound to the upper body.

‘London Ambulance Service took the injured male, who was found collapsed in Further Green Road, SE8, to a central London hospital. He was pronounced dead at 03:37hrs.’

4AD1453F00000578-5576905-image-m-2_1522860095159

What happened next? Of course, this pensioner was arrested on suspicion of murder. Murder! A crime which requires premeditation and to be without lawful excuse, for stabbing an intruder to your home. With his disabled wife upstairs, Mr. Osborne-Brooks encountered and subsequently killed an armed man who was intruding in his home, the purported castle of the Englishman. No more a castle, you are a serf of the state and subject to prosecution- for doing what any man ought to do in such circumstances. Are we to accept that criminals may just enter our homes, threaten our lives and take what they will?

This is a travesty of justice at any time, let alone the crime nightmare we find ourselves in today. You are more likely to be raped in London than New York. Terrorism is impossible to control. Islam is appeased and treated as an exalted religion over our own and is in control of increasingly large territories across the country. The leader of the Christian faith in Britain has simply given up. White Britons are a minority in their own capital. Free speech died long ago in the land of my fathers. You’ve heard this song from me and others before. The rhetoric of terrorism will never win and strong and stable becomes a little more shrill with every passing assault on my people. The police investigate online hate speech but not muggings – as the unfairly maligned Katie Hopkins said, if this terrorism losing, I’d hate to see it win.

Our enforcement officers are visiting mosques today to speak to residents about hate crime concerns.
If you face anti-Muslim hate, report it to @TellMamaUK and always dial 999 in an emergency. #WeStandTogether pic.twitter.com/j92uOU6UgC

This is not a police officer. This is an enforcement officer, whose job is to collect information about crimes committed against the good name of Islam. He has no power to arrest, nor to issue any fines. This young man is employed by the state to sniff out hate. The kind of hate that obeys neo-Marxist ideas, the perceived hate for the minority projected into the heart of the White Briton, hate that is subjectively felt- on behalf of the minority! If you feel someone hates someone, then it is so and neither party need agree with you.
I’m from a little place called Great Britain,
But I dunno if I love or hate Britain,
These words upon my page written,
Are the things that make and break Britain. ~ Scroobius Pip
Maybe your European country has similar problems that are being unreported. Maybe you are a Swede, lied to about your democratic socialist wonderland, or German and told that your generation must suffer the intolerable, for the indelible sins of the Reich. The Reich, the idea of which remains to this day the great weapon against the people of all Europe, against our national identity. It seems that wherever you turn, suggesting that perhaps our nations are ill-served by the Multi-Kulti experiment draws the accusation: “Nazi!”

Is it the case that this fifty-something school teacher is a Nazi when she says with sadness of her majority immigrant students;
“I believe the difference between their world at home and our world is so large they cannot reconcile them. The Sharia is, for many students, surely superior.”
Only the fool or the ideologue can disagree with this assessment. Anyone who thinks for longer than ten-seconds about the nature of faith can see how obeying the laws of God is more important to the faithful than integrating with a sad shadow of a Western civilization that knows not for whom it stands. We know not why we exist. No longer allowed a national identity, Europeans are simply chattle. Though we are told that we are free, the truth is we have no freedom at all and no respite from the Orwellian demands of our masters that we ignore the obvious in favor of the fantastical.
The sad reality is that, in all likelihood, war will come again to our continent. It will be unlike the war that nearly killed national identity, in that no more will a nation-state invade her neighbors for territory and conquest. This war will be continent-wide, but internal – and I believe firstly ideological. As the demographics slide further and further towards the annihilation of White Europeans in many countries, the powers that be – the globalist, rootless and self-serving elites that lead most European countries – will ramp up the programming. State news channels will increase the propaganda, of how values are all that matter. We will see enforcement officers like in Hackney rolling out across the land. The taxpayer will pay for their own imprisonment, fearing to leave their houses, and unable to defend their homes in any case.
“There is a rise in knife crime because nothing is being done about it. Gang crime and gangland violence should be taken seriously as terrorism by the state. Statistical trends over the years show more fatalities of gangland activities than terrorist activities. There is no voice of reason from state officials and an absence of debate.”Dr. Mohammed Rahman
What I contend we are seeing is the weaponization of minority groups by the state itself. One has to admit, using Islamophobia to repress verbal dissent and feral immigrant youth to make the streets so dangerous – or at least give that impression – that most civilians will simply stay at home would be a brilliant idea if your agenda is to create a submissive and servile nation of tax-cows. The neoliberal debt machine needs feeding; so for as long as the music plays the aim has to be to keep the majority dancing to the tune while they are robbed blind, and ultimately replaced by the migrants Israel is too proud to take.
The state must encourage the Muslim community to tell stories of hate crimes, which suggests the hate crimes are few. Tell Mama, a Muslim run and state-funded collector of anti-Muslim sentiment is regularly pushed through the media as an authority on the matter, despite previously losing funding for misrepresenting statistics. Imagine if you were being persecuted – would you need enforcement officers and campaigners to encourage you speak out?
Imagine, a state-funded NGO and enforcement officers on the streets of Telford, of Oxford, of Rotherham. Where was the state then? Looking away. Gathering evidence of anti-Muslim hate, I suppose. Imagine a constable patrolling Mr. Osborne-Brooks’ street in the wee hours of Wednesday morning. Where was the state then? Not protecting the law-abiding citizen, that is for sure.
Imagine recognizing that for all the faults in our society that this society is British, not the dar al-Islam; and that British law -not Islamic- has to rule. Imagine that offense had to be taken and not given. Imagine that instead of stifling the legitimate questions many Britons have about Islam and immigration we could be trusted to discuss them and find peaceful grounds, and non-violent solutions. Instead, old men are arrested for defending their wives and homes from burglars; criticism of Islam is banned, and London itself has been turned over to criminal gangs – the vast majority of whom are non-British in ethnicity.
I have been a vocal opponent of interventionalist foreign policy and war in general for most of my adult life – primarily from a leftist position. I abhor violence. I find no pleasure then in telling you that we are headed for civil war in the United Kingdom if we persist in treating the native population as little more than a tax farm. For far less insult the American Revolution began, and like almost all civil conflicts we will see bloodshed in England when the financial situation becomes untenable for a critical mass of citizens. For reasons best known to themselves, our leaders – and this I fear is true of most Western nations – have abdicated. Capitulated. Do they care about anything other than living out their lives in comfort, secure that their childless lineages end during times of relative prosperity?
[Society] is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. ~ Edmund Burke
For whatever reason, we believe that war is over in Europe, that it may never return. Seventy years of peace with forty years of paranoid cold war have resulted in a kleptocrat European Union and brainless, soulless political elites who know nothing of their own cultures; wishing only that all Europe becomes a federal state. Looking to a utopian future has always proven to be a recipe for disaster for mankind.
It will not start out as a race war; first Britons will first turn on each other as the hard left demands more state support and the right refuses to pay for it. The socialist cries that the government has sold the family silver will carry some weight- enough to mobilize the anti-capitalists against the working class, who are already beginning to gather together in self-interest. The riots of the disenfranchised Black youths in London will again be played off in the media and by the liberals as a just and expected response to this austerity; and Islam will continue to be protected at all costs, despite further evidence of rape gangs, jihad, and terror plots. In such an environment, all it will take is a single flashpoint to turn economic strife into sectarian violence the likes of which we have not seen since The Troubles. The fight will be undesired by all, not that this will save us.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” ~ John F. Kennedy

In a time of chaos, human beings revert to tribal states. We seek solace and comfort in those that are like ourselves. Can we deny that on some cultural-wide subconscious level that this is happening at greater and greater levels? The desire for ingroup identity is rising, across all demographics. You can feel it in the air and water itself- this is why identitarians are looked at with fear by the state. The elites know what the rise of these groups portend for the future, that none of these events are happening in isolation, that they are all connected to the state’s failure to enforce the laws fairly. Is civil war inevitable? Maybe- I hope it can be avoided. I hope, as always, that I am wrong and the world can be a Coca-Cola advert of inclusivity, just plain old getting along, in the way that our governments have promised us we all would.

Militants leaving Syria’s Douma under deal with government

SYRIAN WAR REPORT – APRIL 2, 2018: MILITANTS START THEIR WITHDRAWAL FROM KEY TOWN OF DOUMA

South Front

On March 31, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies established a full control over the southern part of the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta after units of Faylaq al-Rahman and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) had fully withdrawn from the area.

The Russian Center for Reconciliation of the opposing sides in Syria revealed that a total of 41,126 militants and their family members had left the settlements of Erbin, Jobar, Ein Tarma and Zamalka. Meanwhile, 153,140 civilians have been evacuated since the start of humanitarian pauses in the area.

The area of Douma, controlled by Jaish al-Islam, remains the only point of tensions in the area. On April 1, the Syrian state-run news agency SANA said that an evacuation of militants had been started in Douma. However, later on the same day, Political leader of Jaysh al-Islam Mohamad Alloush denied that his group had reached an evacuation agreement with the Damascus government. According to Alloush, the only reached agreement was aimed at extending the ceasefire in the area.

According to pro-government sources, militants evacuated from Douma were members of Faylaq al-Rahman, not Jaish al-Islam. These militants had retreated to Douma during the earlier SAA advance in the center of Eastern Ghouta.

On March 31, the SAA once again threatened Jaish al-Islam with a military operation if the group does not accept the reconciliation deal. Nonetheless, by April 2 morning, the operation has not been started.

On March 30, two servicemembers of the US-led coalition were killed in an explosion of improvised explosive device in Syria. On March 31, the coalition revealed their identities: Master Sergeant Jonathan Dunbar of the US military and Sergeant Matt Tonroe of the UK military.

According to Alan TV journalist Jenan Mosua, the incident took place near the Sheikh Akil graveyard in the southern part of the city of Manbij and two members of the Kurdish Women’s Protection Units were also wounded in the incident.

Local sources from Manbij also noted that the US-led coalition had increased a number of troops deployed in the area following the incident.
Pro-Kurdish sources blame the IED attack on Turkish-backed armed groups. According to this version, Turkey may use its proxies to increase “costs” of the US-led coalition military presence in Manbij. Turkish leadership have repeatedly claimed that Manbij may become a target of the Turkish military operation in northern Syria.

According to pro-opposition sources, on March 31, Russian warplanes conducted a series of airstrikes on militant positions in the areas of Ariha, al-Dana and Jisr al-Shughur in northwestern Hama. The Syrian pro-opposition news outlet Enab Baladi also reported that Russian warplanes had destroyed the bridges of al-Jaid, al-Sharia and Twinah.

Some pro-government activists immediately described the alleged Russian airstrikes as a sign of the upcoming anti-terrorist military operation in the area. However, this scenario is highly unlikely:

  • This area is a part of Idlib de-escalation zone;
  • The SAA is currently involved in a series of complicated operations in the Damascus countryside;

Related Videos

هل يُحاكَم قابيل بتهمة قتل هابيل؟

مارس 10, 2018

د. عصام نعمان

نشرت صحيفة «القدس العربي» قبل أيام أنّ نقابة المحامين في النجف أجرت محاكمة للخليفة الأموي هشام بن عبد الملك انتهت بالحكم عليه بالإعدام بتهمة قتل زيد بن علي بن الحسين.

الخبر طريف ومخيف في آن. طريفٌ لوجود ناس في كوكبنا الأرضي ما زالوا يجدون رغبة ومتعة في الاقتصاص من شخص لارتكابه جرماً قبل نحو 1400 سنة. مخيفٌ لاحتمال أن تتفشّى هذه التقليعة في أوساط البشرية المعاصرة، فينبري أشخاص أو جماعات من فرط ولعهم بإحقاق الحق ونشدان العدالة إلى إجراء محاكمة لقابيل بتهمة قتل أخيه هابيل!

تصوّروا لو تحوّلت هذه التقليعة الى نزعةٍ أو تقليد جارفٍ عابرٍ للأمم والشعوب، فينبري بعض المسيحيين إلى إجراء محاكمة لكلّ مَن يثبت التحقيق قيامه أو اشتراكه أو تدخله في جريمة صَلب السيد المسيح. ثم تصوّروا لو أنّ بعض المسلمين انبرى إلى إجراء محاكمة لكلّ من يثبت التحقيق قيامه أو اشتراكه أو تدخّله في جرائم اغتيال كلّ من الخلفاء الراشدين: عمر بن الخطاب وعثمان بن عفان وعلي بن أبي طالب والخليفة الأموي عمر بن عبد العزيز الذي يعتبره الفقهاء خليفةً راشدياً بالتقوى والفتوى والممارسة وسيّد الشهداء الحسين بن علي وغيرهم كثيرون من القادة والأعلام والأفذاذ المظلومين. تخوّفي أنه إذا ما جرت هذه المحاكمات ومثيلاتها، فتكون البشرية قد استحضرت ماضيها وأعادت اجتراره في الحاضر وربما في المستقبل إلى نهاية التاريخ.

هل مِن مسوّغ لتخوّفي هذا؟

نعم، لأنّ بعض العرب والمسلمين ما زال يعيش في الماضي ويقوم، بشكلٍ أو بآخر، باستحضار بعض واقعاته وحكاياته وأحداثه وحوادثه ويُعيد اجترارها أو محاكاتها في الحاضر.

نعم، الماضي يحتلّ قسماً كبيراً من حاضرنا. ونحن نعيشه يومياً ونعيد إنتاجه، بوعي أو بغير وعي، في شتى مناحي حياتنا. كلّ ذلك لأنّ الماضي في ثقافتنا ما زال المثل والمثال والقدوة والأسوة. فنحن لا نتذكّر واقعاته وأحداثه لأخذ العبرة والاتعاظ بل للاجترار والمحاكاة.

ما سبب هذه الظاهرة المرَضية؟

إنني من القائلين إنّ الإنسان في قوله وفعله هو إبن ثقافته. كما تكون ثقافته يكون. صحيح لأنّ جملة عوامل وحاجات وتطلّعات تكوّن ثقافة الإنسان، وقد يكون لبعضها دور في تكوينها أكثر من غيره، ومع ذلك فإنّ حضورها في عقل الإنسان وقلبه وأعصابه يبقى حضوراً متكاملاً ومؤثراً.

من الواضح أنّ للماضي حضوراً واسعاً وفاعلاً في ثقافة معظمنا التي هي ثقافة ماضوية، إنْ صحّ التعبير. معظمنا يفكّر بلغة الماضي وصِيَغه وقيمه وحتى مصطلحاته، ويستسيغ استحضاره وإعادة تجسيده في الحاضر. نحن، بهذا المعنى، ماضويون. أجل، ماضويون في التفكير والتدبير ونجد، غالباً، ضالتنا وفخرنا في ماضينا التليد، ونصبو إلى محاكاته في حاضرنا.

لكن، هل ماضينا كله تليد؟ هل كله صحيح، وصحي وحقيقي ومتألّق وجدير، تالياً، بأن يُحاكى ويقلّد؟

لا شك في وجود جوانب بهيّة وباهرة في ماضينا، لكن ثمّة جوانب أخرى مظلمة وبائسة. لذا لا يجوز قبول أو تقبّل الماضي كله بعجره وبجره. من الممكن، بل من الضروري، اكتناه قيمَه وجوانبه الحيّة، لكن من الضروري أيضاً اطّراح قيَمه الشائخة وجوانبه المظلمة.

بعض الماضويين، وربما السلفيين أيضاً، موغل في التعلّق بالماضي حتى حدود الشغف. الماضي كله أفضل من الحاضر. الماضي كله جدير بأن يُعاد فرضُه على الحاضر والمستقبل. الماضي، في مفهوم هؤلاء، هو المقدّس بالمقارنة مع الحاضر المدنّس.

لعلّ السبب الرئيس لسطوة الماضي على الحاضر هو اقتران الحاضر في معظم مراحل تاريخنا بسطوة الغير المعادي أو المختلف ونزوعه إلى فرض نفسه، وبالتالي ثقافته علينا. رفض الجديد والحديث كان جرّاء مجيئه أو اقترانه مع الآخر المستعمِر أو العدو أو، أقلّه، المختلف.

هكذا كانت، في الغالب الأعمّ، ردة فعل عامة الناس من ذوي الثقافة الماضوية. غير أنّ قلّة فينا، على مرّ التاريخ، تجاوزت أطر ثقافتها الماضوية وتطلّعت إلى ما هو خارجها واستطاعت، تالياً، أن تقف موقفاً نقدياً من الثقافة الماضوية السائدة ومن التراث عموماً.

سببٌ آخر فاعل لتمسّك عامة الناس بالماضي وتقديمه على الحاضر. إنه الدين من حيث هو مصدر الإيمان. الدين موجود ونابع من الكتب الدينية المقدّسة التي تعود بتاريخها الى الماضي ما يجعل المؤمن متمسّكاً بالماضي لكونه مصدر الإيمان العزيز على قلبه ومشاعره ووجدانه.

قلائل من الناس، مفكّرون عقلانيون ومصلحون شجعان، تمكّنوا عبر التاريخ من الخروج من الماضي نحو الحاضر والمستقبل من دون أن يسيئوا إلى تمسك المؤمنين، ولا سيما الماضويين منهم، بقيَم الماضي التي يعتبرونها مقدّسة. هؤلاء لاحظوا أنّ الإيمان بالله ورسله لا يتناقض مع ثقافة الانفتاح العقلاني على الحاضر والتشوّف المتوازن الى المستقبل. بل إنهم لاحظوا ظاهرة مدمّرة هي أنّ عبادة السلطة التي يمارسها معظم الحكّام تتعارض مع عبادة الله. لذا دعوا إلى فصل السلطة عن الدين. هذا الفصل بين الاثنين لا يسيء إلى الدين بل يحصّنه ضدّ أخطاء أصحاب السلطة وخطاياهم. كما أنه يجنّب أهل السلطة سلوكيات بعض أهل الدين المتزمّتة وأحياناً المتعارضة مع مصالح الناس عامةً.

كيف الخروج من الماضي وثقافته المغلقة إلى الحاضر وثقافته المنفتحة والمستقبل وثقافته المغايرة؟

ثمّة مسالك وطرائق عدّة، لعلّ أفعلها في زماننا وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي التي قرّبت بين الأفراد والجماعات، وأتاحت للفرد فرصاً كثيرة لإطلاق قدراته وإيصالها الى الملأ، وجعلت الانشغال بقضايا الحاضر ومتطلّباته متقدّمة على قضايا الماضي وأحداثه الدموية وأَوْلى بالاهتمام من محاكمة قاتلي الناس في أرواحهم وأرزاقهم وطموحاتهم، وأوْلى بالتحقيق من محاكمة قابيل قاتل أخيه هابيل وأمثاله من قَتَلة العظماء على مرّ التاريخ!

Recommended  for Muslim readers

Video No 2 will follow and so on

 

Sayyed Nasrallah Rejects US Presence in Iraq: We Stand by LA in Face of ’Israel’, No for Normalization

Sayyed Nasrallah Rejects US Presence in Iraq: We Stand by LA in Face of ’Israel’, No for Normalization

19-01-2018 | 19:50

Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered on Friday a speech in which he tackled various internal, regional topics.

Sayyed Nasrallah’s speech came during a memorial ceremony held to commemorate the martyrdom of the Resistance men in Syrian Quneitra in 2015, as well as the 40th anniversary of late Haj Fayez Mughniyeh, the father of Martyr Leader Haj Imad Mughniyeh as well, two other Resistance men as well as the grandfather of the martyr Jihad Imad Mughniyeh.

Hailing the Resistance efforts, His Eminence viewed that it should be widely known that one can’t talk about Lebanese security away from Hezbollah martyrs.

“When we talk about the reasons behind Daesh’s [Arabic Acronym for the terrorist “ISIS”/”ISIL” group] defeat, the credit goes to our martyrs, their resilient families, the wounded who are now suffering and the fighters in several arenas,” he added.

In parallel, His Eminence stressed that “the talk of the huge defeat of the American scheme in the region as well as the victories of the governments and the people of the region is due to those sacrifices of martyrs.”

Mentioning some of late Haj Fayez Mughniyeh’s traits, Sayyed Nasrallah said: “Haj Abu Imad is a modest, pure and patient believer, who spent his life supporting the Resistance’s path. He was always present among the martyrs’ families.”

“Abu Imad’s generation was divided into two, some encouraged their sons to join the Resistance, while others didn’t prevent them from doing so,” he stated, pointing out that “offering a martyr leader like Haj Imad is a blessing for the whole family. However, Haj Fayez also offered one of his grandsons.”

The Resistance Leader went on to say: “From the blessings of Haj Abu Imad’s family is to offer a man and an exceptional Resistance leader to in Lebanon and Palestine, the Marty Leader Haj Imad Mughniyeh.”

In addition, His Eminence highlighted that “Haj Abu Imad asked in his will to be buried in his hometown, Tayrdebah . He wanted his family to continue to visit their village.”
Urging the people to follow Haj Fayez’ path, Sayyed Nasrallah urged the families in Beirut to return to their ancestral towns so that they continue to remember their families and return to their homes in their original hometowns.

He also added that their existed plans by the government and the civil society to lift the burden off the capital, in terms of trash, traffic and drugs.

“We in Hezbollah are thinking about this. We want most of those who work in the south, to live in the south and those in the Bekaa to live there,” His Eminence asserted., noting that “once the issue of transportation is resolved in Lebanon, things would be easier.”
On another level, Sayyed Nasrallah rejected US fabrications of the so-called Hezbollah narco-terror network.

In this context, he rejected the baseless claims mentioned [in Politico] and the fact that the
US Justice Department formed a committee to investigate how Hezbollah is related to drugs, and how [former US President Barack] Obama opened the door for Hezbollah.

Clarifying that

“drugs are against Hezbollah values,” he confirmed that “according to Islamic doctrine, selling drugs to enemy societies such as the “Israeli” society is impermissible.”

“This is our absolute commitment,” he reiterated, noting that

“Hezbollah proved that it was successful to fight terrorism. Thus, the US seeks to paint it as a criminal organization: trafficking drugs, auto theft. This is part of the war on us.”

Meanwhile, His Eminence explained that

“Hezbollah isn’t even involved in permissible trade or investments. Hezbollah has not authorized anyone to run investment projects under its name. We don’t have any money for investment. We need money for our arms. However, there are some rich people, but this is an individual thing. Hezbollah didn’t allow anyone to speak in its name.”

He then advised US statesmen to launch a full-scale investigation into the drug-related activities of their own intelligence bodies.

Commenting on the “Israeli” announcement that the entity intends to build a wall on the border with Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored that

“there are 13 disputed areas between Lebanon and “Israel”. To us, we don’t recognize “Israel”. Thus, the disputed areas are to Lebanon or Occupied Palestine.”

“The Lebanese government refused any “Israeli” move in the disputed areas,” he said, announcing that “the Resistance supports the Lebanese government Army in their position.”

To “Israel”, His Eminence sent a sounding message:

“I tell “Israel” to take the Lebanese warning’s serious. We will uphold our responsibilities in this aspect.”

On the soft normalization taking place with “Israel”, Sayyed Nasrallah said Lebanon is committed not to normalize ties.

“There are many in Lebanon who won’t allow any means of normalizing ties with “Israel”. No one is telling you we are against cinema and arts, but doing so under this pretext shows that the state isn’t committed to this principle,” he said.

In this context, His Eminence mentioned Director Stephen Spielberg’s new film “The Post”.

“The issue is not with the movie but with the director – he is on the Lebanese blacklist because he had previously announced his support for 2006 “Israeli” brutal aggression against Lebanon. He even funded this war from his money. He paid $1 million to “Israel”. And now the Lebanese are going to pay to this director and this money might go to “Israel”. He paid $1 million to Israel [after the 2006 war].”


Regarding the recent bomb that targeted Hamas official in the Southern city, Sidon, Sayyed Nasrallah revealed that “all signs indicate that “Israel” was behind the assassination attempt.”

When the Lebanese security agencies conclude their investigations and find out that “Israel” is behind the attack, we hope that it is dealt with as a violation of the Lebanese sovereignty,” His Eminence added.

According to His Eminence,

“This is a dangerous beginning. I want to warn that the attack against the Hamas official represents the beginning of a dangerous security phase in Lebanon.”

He said that the resistance will take its responsibilities in this sense.

On the coming Lebanese parliamentary elections, Sayyed Nasrallah said:

“We support the state and we are not at the point where we have entered the elections phase and hence I will leave this discussion for the next few days in another televised speech.”

“I just want to say that there is an atmosphere of accusations in the country, just to be fair I don’t think that there is anyone in Lebanon who wants to delay or annul the elections,” he stated.

However, he commented on the recent political disputes by saying: “There is no need to cause tension and say that the elections will be postponed. This country can’t be governed by isolating anyone. We had previous experiences in this context.”

“This country can only continue through dialogue, integration and coexistence, not through elimination and marginalization,” His Eminence underlined.

Back to the regional front, Sayyed Nasrallah warned that

“the Americans want to return to Iraq and Syria under the pretext of Daesh. This is while the entire world knows it was the US administration that created the Takfiri group.”

“One of the major challenges Iraqi forces are to face is to reject the presence of US forces,” he viewed.

To the Americans, His Eminence said:

“If you want not to return to our region, ask your allies in the region and the world not to support Daesh.”

He further slammed US President Donald Trump’s use of “Islamic terrorism,” noting that such a terminology clearly proves his animosity towards Islam and Muslims.

“There exists a continuous discrimination from Trump’s administration, He uses the term “Muslim terrorism” on purpose. He has now come to discriminate against the African countries and Haiti.”

In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah cautioned that

“Trump will continue to pressure Arab countries. There also appears to be Arab pressure on Palestine for a deal that has been offered to them [by the US] as long as the Palestinians refuse the deal. There are Arab regimes that continue to pressure the Palestinians to accept the little presented to them.”

Affirming the Resistance’s rejection to the American arrogance and the Zionist scheme, Sayyed Nasrallah concluded: “We have created victories and we will protect our country and side.”

Source: Al-Ahed news

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: