9/11: A U.S. Deep State Insider Speaks …

September 11, 2021

9/11: A U.S. Deep State Insider Speaks …

An 8 part tweet stream by Pepe Escobar and posted with his permission

Pepe has two requests as follows:

  • Please retweet as much as possible
  • Please alert the Saker community – because at least parts of this thread may be “disappeared”, post-Allende-style, in no time. These are the parts that totally destroy the official narrative.

9/11: A U.S. DEEP STATE INSIDER SPEAKS Old school. Top clearance. Extremely discreet. Attended secret Deep State meetings on 9-11. Tired of all the lies. The following is what’s fit to print without being redacted.

Part 1 THE PHONE CALL. Up next.

“An emergency phone conference was held in the early afternoon of 9/11 based on the fact that WTC Building Number Seven was still standing. Demolitions were engineered to cause the building, as well as the others, to fall into its own footprint. I attended this call.”

Part 2 On WTC7: “No plane hit Building Number Seven.” “The CIA was brought to cover it up. The CIA set up failed asset bin Laden to blame as misdirection, then pulled the plug on Building Number Seven.” “The CIA doctored boarding tapes to show Arabs entering the planes.”

Part 3 On Mullah Omar: “Our CIA Arabists knew that if we blamed Osama, who was innocent of 9-11, Mullah Omar would not give him up in violation of the laws of Islamic hospitality. Mullah Omar requested evidence: then he would turn Osama over. Of course, we did not want that.”

Part 4 On heroin: “The Afghanistan heroin war was justified by 9-11. No one in Afghanistan was involved in 9/11. No member of Islam was involved. We invaded Afghanistan for only one purpose, which was to restart heroin production shut down by a righteous act of Mullah Omar.”

Part 5 On CIA and heroin: “CIA heroin plantations in Afghanistan funded external, clandestine operations and lined some important people’s pockets. That was common practice when the CIA ran the heroin operation in the Golden Triangle.”

Part 6 On MOTIVE: “It was never in the U.S. strategic interest to lay a curse on Islam in the West.” “9-11 was a kind of Gulf of Tonkin false flag operation justifying a war on Islam and the invasion of Iraq, followed by other invasions of Islamic nations.”

Part 7 Afghanistan-Iraq: “The Taliban loved us as they did not know that we lured Russia into Afghanistan. It was idiotic to think that they wanted to hurt their ally on 9-11.” “With Iraq invaded over a new falsity, the neocons created a war of hatred against Islam.”

Part 8 Who’s in charge: “The apex of the U.S. command structure is not the presidency. It’s the Deep State. I use that term even though we did not as it is commonly used.”

Islamophobic or Blindly Malicious? US Seizes Quranic Tiles from Iran for Virginia Mosque

August 10, 2021

Islamophobic or Blindly Malicious? US Seizes Quranic Tiles from Iran for Virginia Mosque

By Staff, Agencies

Among the weirdest news a person might hear is that an enemy combats a religion’s culture and civilization.

It is either an aspect of Islamophobia, which is highly unlikely, or a blind maliciousness that the US custom authorities confiscated a set of Iranian tiles to be used in construction of a new mosque in Virginia, demanding they “must be shipped backed to Iran or destroyed.”

The tiles, which are adorned with Quranic verses, were shipped in June from the Iranian city of Qom, to be used in construction of the Manassas Mosque in northern Virginia.

However, they were confiscated at Dulles International Airport after they were deemed to violate sanctions on Iran, the mosque’s imam Abolfazl Nahidian said on Tuesday.

The tiles were a gift and he paid no money for them, but custom authorities at the airport blocked him from claiming them citing the sanctions, he told a news conference at the mosque.

A letter from Customs and Border Protection informed the mosque that the tiles must be either shipped back to Iran or destroyed, the Associated Press cited him as saying.

Destroying the tiles, which are adorned with Quranic verses, “is the same as destroying verses of the Quran, or the whole Quran itself”, Nahidian said.

The mosque is now asking the Biden administration to release the custom-made tiles.

Nahidian said he has received other tile shipments throughout the years without incident, including one shipment that arrived eight months ago. He has led the mosque for nearly three decades.

The Biden administration is locked in a standoff over the US return to a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, showing an aversion to remove the most draconian sanctions which its predecessor imposed on the Islamic Republic.

Biden has admitted that Washington was wrong to abandon the nuclear agreement, but he is showing an urge to retain some aspects of the sanctions as leverage to pressure Iran.

Food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are purportedly exempt from the sanctions that Washington imposed on Tehran after former president Donald Trump walked away from the international deal over Iran’s nuclear program.

But the US measures targeting everything from oil sales to shipping and financial activities have deterred any dealing with Iranians – including humanitarian activities.

The Indo-European, Ashkenazi Jew is not a Cousin of any Arab-Semitic Muslim

Visual search query image

22 Jul, 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen

Susana Khalil

We are in the 21st century of secular values; the colossal Zionist propaganda distorts religion with ethnicity, to hide the colonial anachronism.

Visual search query image

Part I. 

Seen the successful fraud of falsifying history, the theft of history by the Euro-Zionist colonial movement, where European converts to the Jewish religion instrumentalized the Semitic religious heritage to impose a colonial regime in Historic Palestine in 1948. A warm and aesthetic scaffolding, brimming with numerous epics not only from the religious and media cloister, but also from an academic and intellectual secularism. A whole illustrated pen of bohemia, refined acrobatics, intellectual and academic pirouettes, they got muddy in the aromatic and romantic mantle of: “The return of the Jews after 2000 years to the ancestral land, the land that God promised to the Jews”. A skillful claim of false historical rights that follows Indo-Europeans stripping the original Semitic people, under a fascinating and hallucinatory historical scam. 

Today, the peoples of the Arab-Persian Levant, colonially called the Middle East, are caught between a classic and anachronistic colonialism called “Israel”, a neo-colonialism that is the Saudi Monarchy, and almost entirely dictatorial Arab regimes. 

In summary, the Middle East today is composed of colonialism, neo-colonialism and dictatorships.

Saudi Arabia, more than an Islamic theocratic monarchy is a tyranny, and more than a monarchy and a tyranny, it is a neo-colonial entity. With time, the colonizer discovers that the colonial praxis is a very heavy, complex and complicated logistic method, and it is there where he solves, discovers another method – neocolonialism – which consists of hiring natives, creating an elite among them, granting them privileges and power that serve their interests. Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producer in the world; oil is the resource of contemporary civilization. And while Saudi neocolonial tyranny is the most useful piece of the imperial west, “Israel’s” colonial anachronism came to endorse neocolonialism  and “Israel” seemed to be the most beloved and admired ally. 

Part II.

Visual search query image

The betrayal of the corporatocratic Arab-Islamic elite in the service of Zionist colonial expansionism

As early as the 1960s, Egyptian pan-Arabist leader Jamal Abdel Nasser warned of the treacherous threat from Saudi Arabia. Today behind the betrayal of the United Arab Emirates which announced allying itself with the colonial regime of “Israel”, Saudi Arabia and all the imperial and colonial Zionist machinery are unveiled too.

These monarchical corporate petro-dictatorships, very attractive as a stock exchange axis of glamour, splendor, luxury, elegance, opulence, their cities, the “Pompeii” of our times; to stay in power they must sacrifice their own Palestinian Arab brother people, otherwise, the imperial forces must replace these dictatorships.

Some of us argue that the end of “Israel’s” colonial regime would bring about the end of the Arab dictatorships per se. 

It is logical that many monarchical Arab corporate tyrannies in the Gulf betray to perpetuate themselves in power, and the blood of the Palestinian people is their salvation… Let us not confuse logic with morality…

The tyrannical corporation of the Arab-Islamic petro-dollar of the Gulf not only contributes to the disappearance of the Palestinian people, but also that of the rest of the Arab-Persian-Kurdish peoples and cultures, in the face of the expansionist Zionist project of “Greater Israel”. 

Part III.

The falsification of Islam for treason

To justify the betrayal, before the Arab multitude they must do it with manipulation and falsification of the sensitive, sublime sacro-cultural bastions, from the sacred feelings and symbols of the Arab identity, Islam. As an example, the Jews and Muslims are cousins. 

Above all, we must remember and almost claim that the monotheistic Jewish-Christian-Muslim trilogy is a Semitic heritage, that is, what the Arab world is today.    

The monotheistic Judaeo-Christian-Muslim triad is not only a legacy and inheritance of the same ethno-civilization, the Semite, but also as doctrines they have the same root, trunk, and tissue. Judaism is religion and mother religion of Christianity and Islam. For many, Christianity is a Jewish sect. Islam is a Judaeo-Christian religious doctrine, and is a continuity and complement of the legacy of Semitic monotheism. But Zionist propaganda portrayed Islam as the enemy of Judaeo-Christianity.

The prophet of Islam, Mohammad is descended from Ismail, and Ismail is the firstborn son of the Jewish prophet, Abraham (Mesopotamia/ Iraq). Later, the prophet of Judaism had his second son, Isaac, and Issac had Jacob. If this is history or myth, it is of the Semitic people and not of Europe. This is an archive of the Arab ancestor.  

According to the sacred scriptures of the monotheistic Judaeo-Christian-Muslim triad, Jews and Muslims are cousins, that is, Semitic Jews and Semitic Muslims. A Jew of Indo-European roots is not a cousin of a Muslim of Semitic roots, since those who expanded in the world were not Jews, nor Christians, nor were Muslims, what expanded in the world the respective religious doctrines of Semitic peoples. Marking the differences, the Marxists did not expand in the world, what was spread, with less success, was Marxism. 

A German Aryan converted to the Jewish religion is not a cousin of a Hungarian Aryan converted to the Muslim religion; the fact of being Jewish or Muslim does not make these circumcised Indo-Europeans Semites.

Someone Chinese who converts to the Jewish religion is not a cousin to an African person converted to the Muslim religion, although one is Jewish and the other is Muslim, they are not ethno-Semites.

Quechua people, native to modern-day Peru with 15 000 years of history had polytheistic religious expression and then, the fires of the infernal European Inquisition converted them to Christianity, and today some converted to Judaism and live in the colonial regime of “Israel”. These Quechua Jews are not the cousins of any Semitic Muslim and are not the cousins of any Aryan, Chinese, African, Latin etc. Muslim. 

A Yemeni, Iraqi, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese Jew, that is a Semite, is a cousin of a Semitic Muslim.

…None of these religions are peoples… 

We are in the 21st century of secular values; the colossal Zionist propaganda distorts religion with ethnicity, to hide the colonial anachronism. 

Europe weaves and founds its civilization, glory and misery, splendor and horror from its polytheistic Cosmo vision. Europe does not possess monotheism of its own; monotheism is rather a legacy of the Semitic peoples, today’s Arab world. Let us imagine Europeans converted to the Christian religion claiming historic rights to Palestine, or Chinese Muslims claiming historic rights to the Arabian Peninsula, the cradle of Islam. 

Now that Indo-Europeans, Caucasians, Slavs, Scandinavians, in short Aryans, that is, non-Semitic, have converted to a religion that comes from the Levant, from the Semitic civilization, that does not make these Indo-European Semites. Sure they are Jews, but they are Jews, not Semites.

…The Israeli is not an Israelite…

The Saudi tyranny, the emirates, and other Arab traitors are investing colossal money to accelerate the counterfeiting of Islam for the sake of Euro-Zionist colonialism.

The corporate neo-colonial tyrannies of the Gulf have been carrying out a distorted schooling or dismembering of Islam, doing a kind of evangelization as in the case of the Protestants: “If you don’t defend Israel you will burn in the flames of hell. The Gulf theocracies will impose the farce, the Jews are our cousins and we must defend the ‘State of Israel’, otherwise Allah will punish you.”

The Palestinian people were not only robbed of their land but also their history. In classic colonialism the colonizer occupies the land and destroys, abhors the histories of the original peoples. “Israel” is the only colonialism recorded in world history in which the colonizer not only takes the land but also steals the history of the original people. This particularity is due to the fact that this colonizer does not come from a people as in classical colonialism but from a European political movement (Zionism) that seeks to transform itself into a people. Jews are not a people, just as Christians and Muslims are not peoples. In this way, Zionism usurps the history of the original people to justify this classic and anachronistic colonialism today in our 21st century.  

Zionism seeks to snatch away, to expel from History the heritage and contribution of the Arab-Persian people, these are methods of extermination. Already in 1948 under the falsification of history, they managed to impose colonialism in Palestine, but it is a colonialism that is not limited to Palestine, the project is “Greater Israel”. 

Israeli colonialism and Saudi neo-colonialism skillfully agree to use Islam as a slow but sure card to wipe out the Palestinian Semitic people by using the leitmotiv “Israel has the right to exist, the Jews are our cousins”.  Now there are figures who suggest to create Fatwas (Islamic laws), to penalize those who oppose this.  

 The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Zionist Academics Take The Side Of State Power

About me

11 June 2021

by Lawrence Davidson

Part I—Tensions in Academia

The growing divide in the United States between Zionists and supporters of Palestinian rights has led to pronounced tensions in academia. Much has been said about increasing pro-Palestinian student protests as well as the activities of pro-Israel boards of governors, presidents, deans, etc. The latter try to guard their campuses from pro-Palestinian faculty, student clubs, invited speakers and the like.

These tensions have found yet another academic front on which to contest. There are two historical associations in the U.S. for scholars of Middle East studies reflecting opposing attitudes toward Israel and its behavior toward the Palestinians. And this divide presents us with a dichotomy of values at the professional academic level.

The oldest of these is the Middle East Studies Association (MESA). It was founded in 1966 and currently has a membership of more than 2700. It also serves as a “constituent society of thirty-six affiliated organizations.” It puts out a quarterly journal and has an active Committee on Academic Freedom. MESA is a very successful learned society. Its scholars cover all of the Middle East and North Africa. It is dedicated to high standards of scholarship and diversity of interpretation.

By the 2000s the debate within academia over the expansionist nature of Israel and its treatment of conquered Palestinians was heating up. Because most of MESA members have a broad knowledge of the area, a sense of local perspectives, and also know the history of the Arab Israeli conflict, their positions tend to be critical of Israeli behavior and American support for it. And that led to an organizational split.

In 2007 two scholars, Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, decided to start a rival organization, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA). They did so because, according to them, MESA was “dominated by academics who have been critical of Israel and America’s role in the Middle East.”

One might wonder why the position taken by many MESA members upset Lewis and Ajami. After all, debating issues from an historical perspective is, in part, what academics are supposed to do. If MESA was allegedly “dominated” by those critical of Israeli behavior, Lewis and Ajami’s answer was to establish a “politicized” organization “dominated” by Zionists. It made little sense in terms of dialog, but tactically it fit right in with how Zionists—those who uphold the legitimacy of a Jewish state in Palestine—react to criticism.

Over the last quarter century, a common tactic of Zionists has been to withdraw from public debate and, where they can, bring about enforced silence of anyone who is critical of Israel. That, of course, is what those pro-Israeli academic administrators and boards were and are doing. Part of this effort entails labelling those critical of Israel as anti-Semites. This stratagem is generally used to shut down negative assessments in the West. Seeking to expand the scope of this effort, ASMEA’s much lauded founder, Bernard Lewis, who died in May of 2018, sought to defame Islam with the same charge. That approach is carried on by ASMEA. The organization awards a Bernard Lewis Prize, a description of which quotes Lewis, “to an astonishing degree, the ideas, the literature, even the crudest inventions of the Nazis and their predecessors have been internalized and Islamized.” In competition for this award, young Middle East scholars are encouraged by ASMEA to identify Muslim Arab opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism.

Part II—Expressing Values

The two organizations have recently shown where this tension has taken them in terms of human rights. This was occasioned by the recent outbreak Palestinian resistance caused by threats of evictions (ethnic cleansing) of Arab families in Jerusalem, and aggressive Israeli actions at the site of Al-Aqsa Mosque. The latter actions, in particular, triggered rocket attacks from Gaza.

Here is part of a long and detailed MESA statement. The shorter ASMEA statement is given in full:

MESA (21 May 2021) Issued by the organization’s Board of Directors.

“The Board of Directors of the Middle East Studies Association of North America condemns the ongoing and intensified Israeli government assault on the Palestinians of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and those who are Israeli citizens. During May 7–20, 2021, Israeli military attacks on the occupied Gaza Strip damaged at least 51 educational facilities, including 2 kindergartens, 46 schools, 1 university, 1 vocational training center, and 1 Ministry of Education facility—among other vital infrastructure. Israeli air strikes and tank shells directly hit a number of these buildings. The deadly conditions created by the Israeli military attacks in Gaza forced all schools to remain closed for at least five days after the end of the Eid al-Fitr holiday, affecting the lives and access to education of 591,685 students. In addition, Israeli military strikes internally displaced at least 66,000 Palestinians who then sought refuge in 58 schools run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), causing further disruptions to the population’s education–indeed, to their lives. …

“There is little doubt that successive Israeli governments across the political spectrum have carried out a decades-long attack on Palestinian students, teachers, and educational facilities. Indeed, this attack is part of a broader political, administrative, and legal system of racial discrimination and domination—regularly enforced through violence—that has defined the Israeli government’s treatment of the Palestinian people. And, as the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem and the international non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch have found, the Israeli government’s purposeful and systematic privileging of Jewish Israelis while dominating and oppressing the Palestinian people amounts to apartheid.”

ASMEA (25 May 2021) Issued by the organization’s Chairman, Professor Norman Stillman

“The recent wave of violence in the ongoing struggle between Israel and Hamas has left many members of our community of scholars deeply concerned. While we hope and pray no harm befalls any of our members, anywhere, and their loved ones, ASMEA remains committed to our founding principles as an academic association.

“As scholars, we believe in the pursuit of objective truth when studying and teaching the issues and topics affecting the regions of our academic concern. We recognize that these principles can create division and disagreement, but so long as scholarship contributes to the body of knowledge, we welcome and encourage vigorous debate.

“We stand behind and support our members in Israel and deride those more intent on infusing the academic landscape with pointless over-politicization and rank partisanship than restoring balance to the Academy and protecting academic freedom in Middle East and African studies, and related disciplines.”

There are a couple of things to note about these two statements: (1) The MESA statement is issued in support of the Palestinians, and specifically their collective human right to education. It contains assertions about the Israeli violations of that right—assertions that can be fact checked. The statement also references the reports of international organizations concerned with civil and human rights. (2) The ASMEA statement claims objectivity and a willingness to debate, but then proceeds to defame and trivialize those who disagree with their position—“those more intent on infusing the academic landscape with pointless over-politicization and rank partisanship.” Actually, one can characterize this charge as a psychological projection of the statement’s author who, being a Zionist stalwart must be, by definition, both politicized and partisan. The statement also makes no reference to the Palestinian situation under Israeli rule and reduces the struggle to one between Hamas and Israeli—an objectively incorrect and thus untrue assertion. This reductionist gambit is used by almost all contemporary supporters of Israel.

Part III—Crossing the Rubicon

There is a Rubicon (a fundamental crossing point) that all Jewish intellectuals are now confronting. Whether or not one crosses this line reveals the nature of their values. To cross it is to take the side of human rights and the rule of law. To refuse to cross is to take the side of state power—in this case, to align with the power of a proven apartheid state.

To add context to this choice, consider the case of Eva Illouz, a professor of sociology at Hebrew University. On 14 April 2014, she wrote an essay for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz entitled, “Is It Possible to be a Jewish Intellectual?” In this piece she sets forth two opposing positions: one is the Zionist/Israeli demand for the primacy of “ahavat Israel,” or the “love of the Jewish nation and people”–-the claim that all Jews have a “duty of the heart” to be loyal to the “Jewish nation.” The other position is that of the lone intellectual (here her model is the philosopher Hannah Arendt), whose obligation is to maintain the “disinterested intelligence” necessary to “speak truth to power.”
 
Illouz explains that Zionists have a “suspicion of critique” and use “the memorialization of the Shoah” (the Holocaust) and “ahavat Israel” to mute it. “The imperative of solidarity brings with it the injunction to not oppose or express publicly disagreement with official Jewish bodies.” It is within this context that she can ask if it is still possible to be a Jewish intellectual. Illouz’s conclusion is that it has become exceedingly difficult to be so because the demands for Jewish solidarity are particularly “brutal.” And then she makes her choice and, if you will, crosses the Rubicon. “In the face of the ongoing, unrelenting injustices toward Palestinians and Arabs living in Israel, his/her moral duty is to let go, achingly, of that solidarity.”

It is not difficult to recognize that ASMEA stands at the bank of this Rubicon and refuses to cross. The organization’s values do not reflect any devotion to universal principles such as human rights and the rule of law, much less “objective truth.” Their leadership, at least, has no interest in critiquing the use of power but rather is dedicated to protecting and enhancing the interests of a specific power. The values exalted here are the parochial codes those intellectuals (among others) use to rationalize service to a state even when it turns criminal. The independent-minded, outspoken intellectuals, such as Eva Illouz, demanding broader moral integrity and responsibility from their contemporaries, are rarities.

Part IV—Conclusion

Any speculation about which side of the Rubicon line “History” favors is really silly. Historical prediction, like the weather, is a short-range affair. However, one might sense a present shift in sentiment in the U.S. and the Western world generally. It is an apparent shift in favor of the Palestinians and against apartheid Israel. One might even hazard a guess that the shift will continue to grow. Why so? The reason is straightforward and quite simple. It should continue to grow just as long as Israel does not stop. That is, as long as it continues to evolve as a racist state—simultaneously destroying human rights and international law.

بين الديبلوماسيّة والميدان من طهران حتى صنعاء…

 محمد صادق الحسيني

يقول الفيلسوف والمفكر العسكري الألماني، الجنرال كارل فون كلاوسيڤيتس: «إنّ الحرب هي استمرار للسياسة بوسائل أخرى».

ويضيف: «أن الحرب هي استخدام للقوة لإجبار العدو على الخضوع لإرادتنا».

إنّ هذا يعني أنه عندما يفشل السياسيون في تسوية اي ملف او قضية يلجأ اصحاب القضية الى الحرب، اي الى الميدان لفرض الحلول المناسبة التي عجزت عنها السياسة وبالتالي فرض موازين للقوى ميدانياً تجبر الخصم للرضوخ لمطالب السياسيين.

بمعنى آخر وفي تطبيق لهذه المقولة على ما يجري اليوم من حروب في منطقتنا نستطيع القول بانّ فشل السياسة والسياسيين في جبهة الخصم من فرض إرادتهم علينا دفعهم الى إعلان الحرب علينا.

في المقابل لم يكن أمامنا ونحن الذين تعرّضنا لحروب العدو المفروضة علينا سوى أن نذهب الى قتال العدو في الميدان حتى نعدّل في ميزان القوى بيننا وبينه لنجبره على الخضوع لإرادتنا.

المتتبّع لخط سير تطورات بلداننا في غرب آسيا يستطيع القول إنه وعلى مدى ٤ عقود مضت كحد أدنى قمنا بتطبيق هذه القاعدة الذهبية للمفكر الاشهر في علم الحرب على عديد من الساحات، وفي مقدمها إيران، وقد نجحنا فيها.

وقد حصل ذلك بالفعل بالإجمال والتلخيص على مراحل ثلاث:

 في الأولى وهي الأشهر كانت العملية في مواجهة الحرب الكونية التي اعلنت ضد إيران فور نجاح ثورتها الإسلامية بقيادة الامام روح الله الموسوي الخميني.

الثانية الاخطر في مواجهة الحرب الكونية الثانية ضد سورية الاسد العربية بعدما رفضت الخضوع لشروط الخريف العربي المدمّر.

الثالثة الأقرب والتي لا تزال جارية على قدم وساق ضد يمن أنصار الله الحرة المستقلة التي رفضت التبعية والتقسيم وسحق الهوية بهدف تسوية الطريق لتسليم ما تبقى من مقدرات عربية للعدو الصهيوني والسيد الأميركي.

وهكذا تبلورت عملياً أسطورة المقاومة التي يعيّرنا البعض بها اليوم، او يلصق بنا شتى التهم بسببها او يرمينا باللمز والهمز «الأكاديمي» مرة والنيوليبرالي مرة أخرى بوصفنا مرة بالمتزمتين وأخرى بالمتشدّدين وثالثة بالمتطرفين ورابعة بأننا من أتباع المهدي الذي يريد اجتياح العالم العربي!

وإنما نعيد استذكار هذا في هذه اللحظات المصيرية، لكوننا أمام امتحان واختبار داخلي وخارجي في كل أقطارنا العربية والاسلامية اليوم، وبشكل خاص في دول محور المقاومة، مطلوب فيها أن نجتاز بنجاح «فتنة» استقطابين كاذبين… الاستقطاب الكاذب الاول بين ميل شعوبنا للسلام والعيش بأمان وبين عشقهم لإنجازات أبطالهم التاريخيين في الميادين أي بين السلام ايّ الحلّ السياسي كما يقولون وبين الحسم في الميدان.

وحتى نضع النقاط على الحروف لا بدّ من تذكير أصحاب الفتنة الجدد، بأنهم هم من أشعلوا الحروب ضدنا ودفعوا بنا الى دخول ميادين القتال للدفاع عن ديننا وأوطاننا واستقلالنا وحرياتنا، ولم نكن نحن من أشعل الحروب.

والاستقطاب الثاني بين العروبة والإسلام.

وإذا نسي البعض فنحن لن ننسى ونذكّر لمن ألقى السمع وهو شهيد بأن حلف اليسار القديم مع النيوليبراليين الجدد الذين يتهموننا اليوم بأننا إسلاميون متطرفون او خمينيون او متحالفون مع إيران الخامنئي، انما نهدّد الأمن القومي العربي بسلوكنا هذا، هم أنفسهم من كانوا قد وقفوا طوال النصف الثاني من القرن الماضي ضد الزعيم الراحل جمال عبد الناصر وقاتلوه ونعتوا «القومية العربية» التي آمن بها ودافع عنها، بالجاهليّة رافعين بوجهها راية الاسلام كذباً وزوراً…

 ولما برز الإمام الخميني مجدّداً النهضة الإسلامية ورافعاً راية فلسطين والدفاع عن العروبة التي رموها هم على قارعة الطريق، تذكروا فجأة انهم عرب وان القادم الجديد بثورته وجمهوريته الحرة والمستقلة وحلفائها انما يشكلون تهديداً للأمن القومي العربي لا بد من مواجهته ومنع تمدده…!

إن أي مؤرخ منصف لا بد أنه مع قراءته الموضوعية لما حصل طوال العقود الأربعة الماضية سيكتشف ان طلاب الحروب ومروّجيها من بين أبناء جلدتنا والمدعومين والمندسين بجحافل الغرب لم يعملوا ذلك الا لإدراكهم خطر مقولة المقاومة التي رفعت بوجه سياساتهم الظالمة ومطامعهم الخطيرة، التي تبلورت مرة ناصرية عربية وأخرى خمينية إسلامية.

انّ اسطورة المقاومة التي صدّت موجاتهم الثلاث في الهضبة الإيرانية الإسلامية، ومن ثم على بوابات الشام العربية الفلسطينية واليوم على تخوم الهضبة اليمنية الحرة والمستقلة وأمّ العرب وأصلهم، انما مذهبها ودينها وقوميتها وانتماؤها هو لله الواحد القهار الذي صنف البشر على قاعدة:

«الناس صنفان إما اخ لك في الدين أو نظير لك في الخلق» وإنها هي هي مَن كانت تقف عائقاً وسداً منيعاً امام الاستعمار والصهيونية والرجعية العربية.

وهذه الأسطورة هي من افرزت القادة العظام الحاج قاسم سليماني وأبو مهدي المهندس وعصام زهر الدين وصالح الصماد والحاج عماد مغنية، وأمثالهم المئات والآلاف من أمة أشرف الناس، الذين بفضلهم إنما يحقق السياسيون اليوم إنجازاتهم، وبمدادهم يخط الكتاب رواياتهم، وبدمائهم يحيا سائر من بقي على قيد الحياة من بقية السيف ناجياً من وحشية جيوش إرهاب العدو الذي ما انفكّ يوظف راية الإسلام مرة وراية العروبة مرة اخرى، لخداع الرأي العام والرأي العام منه براء.

وها هم آخرون جدد مرجفون بدأوا يضافون الى اولئك أخذوا برداء الفتنة وراحوا يروّجون لمقولة: «إنّ الميدان عسكرة لقضايا الامة لا لزوم له وانه كان بالإمكان تفاديه لو أننا أحسنّا فن الحوار مع العدو وعاملناه بالتي هي أحسن بدلاً من الدخول في مستنقعات الحروب.

لقد نسي هؤلاء او تناسوا او يتغافلون لغاية في نفس يعقوب بان من يدعوننا اليوم للحوار والجلوس الى طاولة المفاوضات هم من ظلوا حتى الأمس القريب يهددوننا بنقل الحرب الى داخل مدننا وشوارعنا وازقتنا وبيوتنا، بل إنهم اقسموا بأنهم لن يوقفوا الحرب علينا الا فاتحين مصلين في جوامعنا الكبرى.

 وأنهم ما نزلوا اليوم عند اجندة الحوار الا بعدما ذاقوا مرارة الميدان الباليستية الدقيقة والشاردة.

هذا إن كانوا فعلاً يريدونه حواراً وليس التفافاً وخدعةً او مراوغةً، واستراحة محارب تمهيداً لاستمرار الحرب بوسائل أخرى (اقلب نظرية المفكر الألماني) الذي بدأنا المقالة معه أيّ أن يأخذوا منا في السياسة ما لم يتمكنوا من أخذه منا في الميدان…!

 والحرب خدعة، فإياكم والخدع وأمهات الفتن الكبرى التي تتنقل اليوم من ميدان لميدان ومن ساحة لساحة لمنعنا من القيام بالفصل الأخير من هجومنا الاستراتيجي نحو أم المعارك أي تحرير فلسطين وبيت المقدس.

وما ذلك على الله بعزيز.

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله…

Naqqash’s solution for Middle East: A Levantine Confederation (Pt. 4)

March 10, 2021

Naqqash's solution for Middle East: The Levantine Confederation (Pt. 1) |  Middle East Observer

Description:

In a 2020 conference held on Zoom and published on YouTube, the late senior Middle East political analyst Anees Naqqash spoke about his 2014 book titled The Levantine Confederation: The Battle of Identities and Policies.

The book proposes that the solution to the chronic problems of the war-ravaged and tumultuous Middle East region lies in the establishment of a confederation that unites the states of the Levant, or what Naqqash often calls the ‘West Asian region’.

Middle East Observer is gradually publishing English translations of the author’s online talk over several posts. The following is Part Four.

To read Part One see here.
To read Part Two see here.
To read Part Three see here.

Source:  Kalam Siyasi YouTube Channel

Date:  Aug 26, 2020

(Important Note: Please help us keep producing independent translations for you by contributing as little as $1/month here)

Transcript :

It is no longer a secret; no one can say anymore that we are (falsely) accusing a (particular) state of being an ally of America and an ally of Zionism, now that all the masks have fallen off. They (some Arab states) themselves admitted that they had served America for 70 years (by implementing) its regional and international strategies. Today, they are openly expressing their convictions and publically (sharing) their relations with Zionism and the US. For them, Arabism and Islam have become a type of folklore with no ideological, political or cultural importance, (and they feel no need to) respect the will of their people and the people of the region. They have lost all these titles (Arabism and Islam). However, they have a strong grip on the Arab media because 80% of it is financed by Arab oil (monarchies). Therefore, we are facing a major offensive locally and internationally.

I believe that no country alone, no matter how powerful it is, can face such an offensive; and no party can claim that it alone can confront it. Even Turkey, with its current capabilities, cannot defend the region on its own and run things alone no matter how great its economic and military capabilities. The reason is that if Turkey took action individually, without joining the socio-political and security pact and the dialogue we are calling for, other powers (in the region) will be troubled by the Turkish forces and will begin a resistance under the title of rejecting a (potentially) new Ottoman (Empire). Some people in Turkey may have the idea of resurrecting the Ottoman Empire with the same old ultranationalism, but this is impossible these days.

Iran, which today leads the Axis of Resistance in confronting Israel and the US presence in the region, meaning that it leads the armed national liberation movement against the Western presence, also (has not yet been able to achieve) a broader regional dialogue (that is necessary) to clarify its goals and cooperate with other powers. However, there is an advantage that I must point out, which is that the bilateral Turkish-Iranian cooperation is almost impeccable. However, there are many regional issues that (both countries) do not agree on, the most important of which are the conflict in Syria; Iraq; in addition to some other matters. Even regarding Palestine (there are differences between the two). The Iranian involvement has now become an engagement that challenges the US and Israel with (its provision of) weapons and equipment aimed at unconditionally supporting the Palestinian resistance with all means (possible). Turkey, on the other hand, supports the Palestinian people, but without disturbing Zionism. It refuses to withdraw its recognition of (Israel as a state), it does not bother the US, nor does it support the (Palestinian) resistance with arms. There must be a dialogue to settle these issues.

I think that the dialogue aiming to build a Levantine Confederation that moves away from Ibn Khaldun’s concept of one ‘asabiyyah (socially cohesive group) having control over the region, will (in fact) bring ideological peace to the region, because the Turkish bloc represents a major Sunni bloc and the Iranian bloc represents the largest Shia bloc in the Islamic nation. Therefore, (more cooperation between the two countries) would offer a respite to this sectarian conflict that the Zionists, the US, and all enemies of our nation – and even the Takfiris from within our nation – seek to ignite in order to weaken our nation. In other words, this is a positive thing that we must support through (the establishment) of an intellectual system that explains to public opinion what we (who call for a Levantine Confederation) do and why are we doing this. Our movement should not be secret or private, and our tactics should be clear, so that no party is accused of wanting to dominate.

The most important thing (necessary here) is that the idea of ​​the hegemony of one sect with its individual capabilities must be completely precluded. We must push parties, powers, movements, thinkers, writers and journalists towards a region-level social, security and political union through dialogue and conferences, and not through hegemony. This (approach) will facilitate the consolidation of financial, economic, military and security capabilities. It would also dispel the worrisome ideas prevailing in the region as everyone fears for their doctrine, nationalism, and even their clan. In order for everyone to feel that there is a great fusion in the region (between our countries), just as big as a nuclear fusion, such that there would be a win-win situation for all, with no losers.

This is what I wrote about in my book after (conducting) a historical study of the way geographical maps were drawn up, by highlighting the ways in which client regimes were implanted (in our region), and by speaking about (the importance of) natural resources, a very important issue when it comes to questions of strategic awareness. Geography is a dominant (factor) that we often forget about. (Geography) is not only related to borders, but also to natural resources and the interconnectedness of natural geography, relating to plains, mountains and valleys. It refers to oil and gas reservoirs. It refers to transit lines, energy transit routes, and the networking/integration of potentials in relation to economic-related transport and the transit of passengers.

Therefore geography is a dominant/undeniable (factor) that must not be forgotten. In the past we lived in an open geography (i.e. without rigid national borders), and what is utterly disgraceful today is that the Hejaz Railway line, that was built just before World War One, had passed through all of these countries, from Istanbul to Hejaz, passing through Palestine and Baghdad, while we are unable today to implement even a portion of this project which would tie these areas together.

(To be continued…)


Subscribe to our mailing list!

Related Posts:

As Macron Courts the Far-Right, France Launches Crackdown on “Islamo-Leftism”

France Protest Feature photo

By Alan Macleod

Source

Islamo-leftism is a label coined by the far-right, with many pointing out the distinct similarities between it and “Judeo-Bolshevism,” a term created by German Nazis linking religion with a set of political beliefs. Yet it has quickly been taken up by many in France’s political center.

PARIS — France’s Minister for Higher Education, Frederique Vidal, has sparked a nationwide controversy with her announcement that the government is attempting to stop the spread of what she called “Islamo-leftism” in universities. Part of the process, she said, would be for the state to decide “what is academic research and what is activism and opinion,” implying that academics would need government permission to research and write on topics deemed too politically sensitive.

Vidal singled out post-colonial studies as a particularly problematic area. “I think that Islamo-leftism is eating away at our society as a whole, and universities are not immune and are part of our society,” she said, warning that France was importing American “woke culture.”

Her comments provoked serious pushback from academics labeling the government’s move a massive blow against freedom of speech, with the subject trending on French Twitter.

Islamo-leftism is a label coined by the far-right, with many pointing out its distinct similarities with “Judeo-Bolshevism,” a term created by German Nazis linking religion to a set of political beliefs. Yet it has quickly been taken up by many in the political center. Le Figaro, France’s best-selling newspaper, ran a frontpage headline last week titled “How Islamo-leftism is infecting universities.” Like the U.S., France is currently grappling with its own legacy of colonialism and racism.

Le Pen lite (or heavy)?

Embattled president Emmanuel Macron has faced widespread opposition to his rule since his election, notably to his austerity policies, which provoked the largest strike since those of May 1968; a fuel tax that sparked the Yellow Vest movement; and his government’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis, which has led to the deaths of nearly 83,000 people.

Macron was comfortably elected in 2017 after fascist candidate Marine Le Pen made it into the final runoff against him. However, the election was marred by widespread abstention and he has struggled with low approval ratings ever since. And while many breathed a sigh of relief that France had been saved from a racist president, Macron has constantly leaned towards xenophobia and the scapegoating of the country’s 5.7 million Muslims in particular. He has used the country’s secular tradition as an excuse to ban Muslim headwear, including burqas, leading to police arresting Muslim women or even forcibly removing their face coverings in public. Macron also introduced new “Islamist separatism” legislation that would curtail civil liberties, playing into the far-right’s conception of a Muslim threat.

In a televised debate last week, Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin even attacked Le Pen from the right, claiming that she was “too soft” on Muslims. A visibly surprised Le Pen was put in the position of defending civil liberties and Islam from the government. “I am strongly attached to our French values; I want to conserve total freedom of religion. That’s my opinion,” she said. With one year to go before the next presidential election, polls show Macron and Le Pen neck-and-neck.

A politically useful racist tradition

France has long carried out questionable policies regarding race. In 2010, the government expelled over 1,000 Romanian and Bulgarian Roma gypsies precisely because of their heritage. In doing so, it broke European Union law, which states that citizens of all member states have the right to live and settle wherever they like in the EU. A French court also banned the use of non-standard letters (such as ñ) in baby names, meaning that a number of celebrated names of Basque and Breton origin (two groups historically persecuted by the central government) were made illegal overnight.

It is not just in France where the government is attempting to interfere in education to stifle unwanted debate. As of 2020, schools in England are prohibited from using material from writers who have expressed anti-capitalist opinions. Meanwhile, Viktor Orban’s Hungarian government chose to outright ban the teaching of gender studies at universities.

Macron’s En Marche party appears to be attempting to undermine Le Pen’s support base among France’s white working class. Committed to neoliberal austerity politics, it is incapable of providing them with material gains. However, it can fall back on an appeal to the nation’s reactionary side by offering a harsh crackdown against the country’s Muslim population. Stoking fears of a supposed Islamist takeover of universities could be one way to do it.

Ayatollah Khamenei opened door of dialogue via his letters to Western youth: Lebanese analyst

By Reza Moshfegh

January 20, 2021 – 10:50

TEHRAN – A senior Lebanese political analyst says that the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei opened a door for dialogue between the Islamic and Western world via his letters to the youth in Europe and North America.

In a letter dated January 21, 2015, and another on November 29, 2015, Ayatollah Khamenei elaborated on the truth of Islam and malicious attempts by certain Western leaders to distort the image of Islam. 

“The door to dialogue that was opened by Ayatollah Khamenei is a constructive step and we always say the door to dialogue, even if it is half open, is much better than closing it completely,” Amin Hoteit tells the Tehran Times.

“Ayatollah Khamenei knows that the Western media is hiding the facts, and this media is in the hands of the malicious colonial groups that besieges the youth and their minds,” according to the Lebanese university instructor and researcher.

The following is the text of the interview: 

Q:    What are the implications of Ayatollah Khamenei’s letters to young people in the West when he urged them to examine Islam first hand rather than believe prejudiced views?

A: The two letters that the Leader of the Islamic Republic wrote to the youth in Europe and North America were a move in consistence with a sound Islamic principle, which is to show the truth and the Islamic call through dialogue. 

Ayatollah Khamenei knows that the Western media is hiding the facts, and this media is in the hands of the malicious colonial groups that besiege the youth and their minds. 

For this reason, he decided to address the youth, showing them the clear and shining truth, and not leaving them prey to a shameless, lecherous, malicious and unjust media.

Q: Do you think that the circumstances are proper for dialogue with Western youth and coming generations?

A: There is no doubt that when the youth receive this message, they will be in a position of tension between two currents: the false path led by the media and politicians, and the path of truth that these messages represent it.

I think that a large number of Western youths will follow what was mentioned in the message of Imam Khamenei if they use logic and common sense.

Since Ayatollah Khamenei is telling the truth, this message will have a good and effective impact on the hearts of young people, and it will make them more prepared to receive other messages and then confront suppressive governments.

Q:    How would you assess the dominance of the Western media over the thought of the youth and the average citizen in the West?

A: I think that the reason that encouraged Imam Khamenei to write these letters was the fabrication and forgery that we find in the paid media that claim freedom of opinion while in fact, they are confiscating free opinion.

Western outlets claim freedom of expression but they are misrepresenting the truth. Therefore, this move was correct and timely which will lead to important results.

The door to dialogue that was opened by Ayatollah Khamenei is a constructive step and we always say the door to dialogue, even if it is half open, is much better than closing it completely.

That is why I think that although the platform for peaceful dialogue is not available in light of this Western regime’s crimes, restricted dialogue in the existing circumstances is better than a break and turning our back.

Q:    How do you see the position of the resistance in the world in the light of Western media propaganda?

A: Unfortunately, Western thought is mostly a prisoner of the media, so you find those who are not biased for injustice heading towards neutrality and a rare few who openly adhere to the truth, contrary to what the media propagates. 

Today, when you find someone who lights a candle in this dark tunnel in which the West moves, the truth-seekers will receive this light, no matter how weak it is. 

Therefore, I believe that the direct speech from the Leader of the Islamic Republic to the youth can push their thought and logic to search the truth, meanwhile addressing their minds is a very important matter and should be followed up.

The resistance plays a prominent and important role in various fields, but we should be aware that the resistance, with its media, its fields of action, and its scope of works under siege by regional dictatorships and their media.

Therefore, we should not lose any opportunity to gain access to the hearts and minds of the youth in a smooth way despite the obstacles. By dictatorships and their flags.

Q: What is the message of the Islamic Revolution to young generations in the region and the globe?

A: The message of the Islamic revolution to the world and the youth, in particular, is a clear message based on four pillars: first, building a secure society, secondly building a society of cooperation and brotherhood among human beings, thirdly preventing maliciousness and confronting arrogance, injustice, colonialism and domination, and fourthly building our homelands and our countries with cooperation, benevolence and peace, and live a safer world full of peace and prosperity. 

Consequently, the message of the Islamic Revolution is completely opposite to the message of colonialism, which wants hegemony and domination to possess and usurp wealth.
 

RELATED NEWS

Alleged Nashville bomber not Muslim: Western media disappointed

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)
In this photo from the Twitter page of the Nashville Fire Department, damage is seen on a street after an explosion in Nashville, Tennessee on December 25, 2020.

by Ramin Mazaheri  and crossposted with The Saker

(Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV’s.)

Alleged Nashville bomber not Muslim: Western media disappointed
Ramin Mazaheri (@RaminMazaheri2) is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV 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 ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

The entire world breathed a sigh of relief when it turned out that the alleged Nashville, Tennessee, bomber was not a Muslim – now nobody can get dragooned into supporting yet another war on a Muslim-majority country.

Isn’t it spectacular how after 9/11 the US impressed almost the entire West into never-ending military service? Western piracy in Afghanistan continues today; Iraq was reduced to shambles; France used the ruse to invade Mali, the Central African Republic and to create a roving “anti-terrorist” force across the entire Sahel; Libya is no longer really a nation; Syria stands despite all the money, guns, terrorists and concrete fortifications the West could muster. I am probably missing some others.

It was true that in the years after 9/11 Muslims silently held their breath when they heard about a terrorist attack, but after 20 years and so many bombs, drones and assassinations it’s abundantly clear that Muslims are not the aggressor nor the transgressor: The pointed finger alleging cultural failure was clearly a false accusation.

The question Muslims now often feel confident enough to ask non-Muslims in public is, “What did Islam ever have to do with terrorism, anyway?” The answer is the same as it was on 9/12/01: “Nothing”.

The Nashville bombing occurred on Christmas day – maybe this was an act of “Christian terrorism”?

The sad irony is that many Christians will flinch at such a term because they view “Christianity” and “terrorism” as being total opposites. Do such persons realise that Muslims view joining “Islam” to “terrorism” also creates an oxymoron? Muslims and Christians should permanently unite around this concept: the sadness of feeling totally misunderstood when the word “terrorism” is affixed to either religion. The only barrier to this is the Islamophobic nonsense which pours out of the West’s chattering classes.

Terrorism is always defined as violence which has a political motive. Was the Nashville bombing, allegedly caused by Anthony Warner, terrorism? We don’t know at this point, so it’s wrong to call it terrorism.

Some report that Warner was paranoid about the effects of the new 5G technology – that seems rather more social than political.

There are unproven accusations that Warner was bombing storage facilities used by the voting machine company Dominion, which is being sued for allegations of vote tampering – if proven to be true then it’s possible this was a political act. It’s looking like Joe Biden will prevail in the still-disputed US presidential election, but is Warner the advance scout of a battalion of right-wing, pro-Trump terrorists which the US media warned about so hysterically in 2020? Considering how insistently they promoted anti-Trumpism and the fear of right-wing violence, it’s surprising that US media hasn’t immediately called Warner a “post-Trumpian terrorist”?

Maybe they will get there, but what this unfortunate episode can teach us is that the West rushes to demonise Muslim citizens and the teachings of Islam whenever they think they have an opportunity to do so. If Warner had been a Muslim there would have been an unjournalistic rush to judgment by Western media that Nashville was undoubtedly an act of – ugh – “Islamic terrorism”.

It’s unfortunate that Islam is so easily slandered in the West, but the problem to discuss here is not religious misunderstanding but reactionary political thought: Islam is slandered so easily precisely in order to create false justifications for the West’s endless imperialist wars in the oil-rich, Israel-surrounding Muslim World.

In the Western world talking of “imperialism” is (incredibly, to me) denigrated as anachronistic, eccentric and unrealistic. It’s not even taken seriously – if I was writing about transgender bathrooms I would be taken infinitely more seriously, and that is no exaggeration. And yet, doesn’t using the lens of imperialism explain the very different US media treatment for Anthony Warner as opposed to “Omar” Warner?

After all, who can the US media suggest we invade as a result of Warner’s alleged act? Which culture can be insulted and ordered to change at the point of a spear? How can Americans feel a misguided sense of superiority – which helps deflect from their ever-increasing inequality, poverty and socioeconomic instability – when Warner’s culture is their own?

And thus Warner is getting treated far more sympathetically than any Muslim menace to society, even though Warner is no more human.

I do not begrudge sympathy for Warner: The unpredictable actions of severely mentally ill people often have devastating consequences on people, and this is an unfortunate part of life and must be discussed.

What I do point out is that, for example, in the majority of France’s terror attacks following Charlie Hebdo’s publication of pornographic pictures of Prophet Mohammad the attacker was also just another mentally-ill person, and not some political mastermind and zealot. I covered these attacks year after year and the perpetrators always fell into one of two categories: the largest was mental illness, while the smaller grouping were political (not religious) terrorists who – without fail – expressly said their attacks were retribution for France’s many imperialist attacks on Muslim countries.

The problem in the world today is not religious – as the West and Israel asserts – but political, as the developing world asserts.

But – as the four-year “daily cultural insanity” of the Trump era proves – the US is incapable of discussing political nuance intelligently and without resorting to hyperbolic slander or wild-eyed absurdities. This explains why if Anthony Warner had been a Muslim the violence would have undoubtedly been declared “terrorism”, immediately – I am referring to endemic American political hysteria of the “other”.  

I am not here to complain – as a professional wordsmith often pedantically does – about the misuse of words and the confusion caused by refusing to abide by established definitions. Instead, I am suggesting that non-Muslims in the West should wake up to just how easily they are intellectually manipulated when it comes to any violence which employs something more brutal than a handgun: Had Warner been a Muslim Americans and Westerners would have shouted at to maintain their awful, destructive and immoral two-decade long war posture towards Muslims and Islam.

When there are acts of political terrorism, the West needs to examine the politics behind it and make sure their politics are just. When there are acts of violence, just because a Muslim was the perpetrator doesn’t make it political. However, in the identity politics-obsessed West, it seems one is always defined solely by his or her tribe and is never just another son or daughter of Adam.

“Anthony” or “Omar” shouldn’t make a difference to you but it certainly does, depending on where you live: manipulative Islamophobia may have sent your children off to die in hopeless wars, gutted your individual political rights and caused you to see anyone with a different political view as your lifelong enemy.


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv

فارس إيران وجمال العراق بطلان أمميّان.. شهداء بلا حدود

محمد صادق الحسيني

كلّ ما يجري ويدور حولنا في هذه الساعة يا حاج قاسم يشي بقرب النصر والظفر في فلسطين وغير فلسطين…

أنت كتبتَهُ بدمك…

مرة كتبته بمسيرة عماد لبنان ومرة كتبته بمسيرة مهندس العراق ومرة كتبته بمسيرة صماد اليمن وفي كلّ مرة كتبته بمسيرة رموز العزة في غزة وبوابات الشام وعند سفوح وهضاب أفغانستان الفاطميّة وشبه القارة الهنديّة الزينبيّة، وبوصلتهم جميعاً إلى القدس من دون مواربة ولا التواء أو درجة انحراف..!

دمك كان يتدفق في أجسام متفاوتة روحها واحدة..!

اليوم وأنت ترقد في كرمان قرير العين صار بإمكانك أن ترى وتشاهد بعين اليقين من رافقوك من القادة كما من ربّيتهم من الكوادر على امتداد البصر أقرب وأشبه ما يكونون بجيش العشرين مليون لتحرير بيت المقدس، كما كان يتمنّى ويخطط إمامك وإمامهم الخميني العظيم..

كلّ هذه الملايين التي شيّعتك والمهندس قبل عام وتحيي ذكراك وذكراه اليوم إنما تنهل من نبع واحد… الإسلام وفلسطين.

دمهم واحد طريقهم واحد هدفهم واحد ولسان حالهم جميعاً… كما سرّك وسرّهم هو القدس فإنّ دربك ودربهم هو دربُ الحسين…

لم يدرس أحد منكم في الأكاديميات العسكرية العليا لكنكم بزّيتم كلّ جنرالات الأرض في القيادة والسيطرة والتخطيط…

لم تتعلّموا في الحوزات الدينيّة التقليديّة ولا الكليّات المدنيّة المشهورة في العالم لكنكم كنتم الأرقى في الأخلاق وفي إتقان العلوم..

لم تسعوا لتسنّم المراكز العليا في السلطات السياسيّة، لكن مواقعكم العمليّة كانت الأعلى والأكثر نفوذاً في مراكز صنع القرار في بلادهم…

لم تفتحوا شهيتكم لمغانم الدنيا وأموالها لكنكم كنتم الأغنى في البذل والعطاء وهم الأفقر إلى الله…

لم تفكّروا في ملذات الدنيا مطلقاً، لكنها أتت إليكم طواعيّة وما أسرَتْكم …

لم تلينوا لحظة واحدة مع العدو لكنكم كنتم الأكثر ودّاً وليناً مع عيال الله بكلّ صنوفهم…

الإيمان كان يغمرك ويغمرهم الى حدّ الذوبان في الله

والعزم والشجاعة كانا يتحزمانك ويتحزمانهم الى درجة صلابة الجبال…

كنتَ وهم الآن أول من يتقدّم الميدان ويخوض الميدان ثم يطلب من رجال الله اللحاق به الى الصفوف الأماميّة…

لا أنت ولا زملاؤك من القادة الذين ربّيت ولا كوادرك كانوا يوماً من المقاتلين الورقيّين او الافتراضيّين في غرف العمليات النظرية…

بل في الطليعة من الجيوش تتقدّمون الصفوف الأماميّة…

خالصين لله كنتم ومن أصفياء الله كنتم وثقتكم به تفوق الوصف، جاهدتم في الله حق جهاده حتى أتاكم اليقين.

من هنا كانت القيادة تليق بكم وأنتم السادة ورمز الانتصار والشهادة بلا حدود..

عابرون للجغرافيا والمكان والزمان والطوائف والمذاهب، وركنكم الشديد مقاومة حتى النصر أو الشهادة

لقد دخلتم التاريخ أبطالاً قوميين لبلدانكم وأقطاركم

وأبطالاً أمميّين لكلّ البشرية والإنسانية جمعاء…

لذلك كله نقول لكم وأنتم الأعلون… تأكدوا يا اسطورة جغرافيا وتاريخ آخر الزمان واطمئنّوا أنكم ستبقون ذخراً لنا وفخراً نعتز به…

في كلّ حركاتنا وسكناتنا أنتم حاضرون، وبيننا أحياء عند ربكم ترزقون أكثر مما تتصوّرون.

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

مقالات ذات صلة

قراءة في كلمة الرئيس بشار الأسد في مشاركته في الاجتماع الدوري لوزارة الأوقاف في سورية

زياد حافظ

See the source image

استوقفنا عنوانان في الصفحة الأولى لصحيفة «واشنطن بوست» الأميركية الصادرة في 8 كانون الأول/ ديسمبر 2020: العنوان الأول: «الإنجيليون يسيّرون ترامب ما يعني فشل الدين»، والعنوان الثاني: «شرعنة المخدرات». العنوانان يمثلان الذهنية القائمة في الولايات المتحدة عند النخب وخاصة عند من يسوّق لليبرالية. وهذا الموضوع بالذات تناوله رئيس الجمهورية العربية السورية الدكتور بشار الأسد في كلمته لمجمع العلماء والعالمات (التشديد على العالمات كان من الرئيس السوري) في افتتاحية الاجتماع الدوري لوزارة الأوقاف. لم يكن المقصود الردّ على ما أتت به الصحيفة لأنّ كلامه سبق ما صدر فيها بل لأنه ربط الموقف السياسي بالبعد الثقافي والمجتمعي لما يمثّله الدين بشكل عام والإسلام بشكل خاص والعروبة والعلاقة بينهما واللغة العربية والقضايا المرتبطة بكلّ ذلك في السجالات التي تدور في الفضاء الثقافي. فلماذا نعتبر كلمة الرئيس في غاية الأهمية في هذه الظروف ومن خلال المنصة التي اختارها؟

السبب الأول هو أنه لأول مرّة نشهد مقاربة من شخص يعتلي أعلى موقف في المسؤولية السياسية أيّ الحكم ويقدّم مقاربة حول ترابط العديد من القضايا الثقافية الفكرية بالسلوك الفردي والجماعي وبالسياسة وبشكل دقيق يتجاوز تعداد العناوين العريضة. فالمواضيع التي تناولها الرئيس بشار الأسد تشمل السياسة والثقافة والدين والمجتمع والفكر كما طرح الإشكاليات المتعدّدة وكيف تنعكس على السياسة. ولم يكتف الرئيس بالتوصيف والتشريح بل رسم الخطوط العريضة لمعالجة الإشكاليات التي تكلّم عنها وجميعها تستحق النقاش المعمّق. وبالتالي أن تأتي هذه المقاربة عن مسؤول يعني أنّ القيادة لمشروع عربي نهضوي موجودة في أعلى هرم المسؤولية وأنّ التجدّد الحضاري هو سينتج عن المقاربات التي يقوم بها المجتمع العربي والإسلامي لكافة قضايا العصر. هذه النقطة في رأينا في بالغ الأهمية خاصة وأنّ الأمة مستهدفة بكلّ ما يكوّنها من مجتمع ودولة وثقافة وحضارة وخاصة في ما يتعلّق بالدين واللغة والموروث الحضاري والفكري. فالحروب التي شُنّت على هذه الأمة منذ قرون عديدة ما زالت قائمة ولم تفلح حتى الآن في محو هذه القوّة الذاتية التي تقاوم الاحتلال والاغتراب.

السبب الثاني هو أنّ الكلمة أتت دون قراءة لنصّ ما وبتسلسل ما يدلّ على عمق الاستيعاب لمجمل القضايا الشائكة وبالتالي تسكنه. كما أنّ إشاراته المتعدّدة لوسائل التواصل الاجتماعي وما يدور من سجالات فيها يدلّ على أنه ليس منقطعاً عن واقع المجتمع. بعض القضايا التي عرضها كالهجوم على القرآن الكريم كالوصف بأنه منتوج سرياني هو هجوم موجود في تلك وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي وقد اطّلعنا عليها. وفي هذه الكلمة عبّر الرئيس عن قناعات عميقة يستطيع المرء من خلالها فهم كيفية التفكير وكيفية المقاربة وبالتالي المواقف التي يتخذها. فهي إحدى المفاتيح لقراءة تفكيره ومواقفه والضوابط والخطوط الحمر التي لن يتجاوزها. فالعروبة خط أحمر وليس شعاراً بل ممارسة لهوية جامعة.

السبب الثالث هو أنّ جوهر كلمة الرئيس السوري يجسّد أدبيات التيّار العروبي الواسع والموجود في مخرجات المؤتمر القومي العربي ومنشورات مركز دراسات الوحدة العربية. وهذا ليس مستغرباً أن يكون كذلك الأمر في سورية وقيادتها بل هو أمر طبيعي بينما العكس لن يكون ذلك، أيّ أن يكون على قمة الهرم السياسي في سورية إلاّ من يجسّد الروح العروبية. فهذه هي سورية قلب العروبة النابض والتي استهدفها العدوان الكوني عليها خشية من تلك العروبة. ويأتي كلام الرئيس ليحسم فكرياً وسياسياً جدلاً عبثياً في الفضاء الفكري والسياسي حول العلاقة بين العروبة والإسلام. فالعديد من المثقفين العرب حاولوا في مراحل مختلفة وضع العروبة في وجه الإسلام كما حاولوا تسويق الهويات الفرعية على حساب الهوية الجامعة. فجاء كلام الرئيس السوري ليدحض كلّ ذلك ويعتبر ألّا تناقض بين هوية العائلة والقبيلة والمدينة والمنطقة والإقليم مع الهوية العربية الجامعة لكلّ تلك المكوّنات. وهذا هو متن الخطاب العروبي للمؤتمر القومي العربي ومن يؤمن بالمشروع النهضوي العربي. فهذه العروبة الجامعة تحلّ المشكلة المصطنعة للأقلّيات التي أدخلتها الحقبة الاستعمارية منذ القرن التاسع عشر.

هذه الملاحظات تستدعي التوقف عند النقاط العديدة التي أثارها الرئيس في حديثه إلى مجمع العلماء والعالمات كما شدّد في بداية كلمته. والنقاط العديدة أثيرت في سياق خط بياني واضح. فالحرب التي تخوضها سورية حرب متعدّدة الأوجه منها ما يمسّ بتماسك المجتمع ويضعف صموده. والتماسك المجتمعي مهدّد إذ الهجوم يستهدف مقوّمات ذلك التماسك وهي الهوية من جهة والدين من جهة أخرى والعلاقة بينهما. ومقاربة الرئيس السوري كانت لها عدّة أبعاد بدءاً بالفكر وثم بالسياسة وتداعياتها على قدرة المواجهة وعلى المستقبل. واستند في المقاربة إلى مخزون فكري وفقهي في آن واحد إضافة إلى ربط ذلك بالخيار والموقف السياسي.

لن نستطيع في هذه المقاربة تناول كلّ الأفكار التي أتى بها الرئيس السوري في كلمته لضيق المساحة أولاً ولأنّ العديد منها يستحق مقاربات منفصلة كحديثه عمّا سمّاه بالليبرالية الحديثة مثلاً أو حول أصول اللغة العربية أو حتى دور الإسلام في بلاد الشام. لذلك سنتناول بعضها لما نعتبره من أساسي في فهمنا لكلمته.

في البداية، الخط البياني للكلمة هو تشخيصه لطبيعة المواجهة التي فُرضت على سورية عبر العدوان الكوني عليها. لم يكرّر أسباب العدوان ومن اشترك وما زال في ذلك العدوان لكنه أراد أن يركّز في تشخيصه للمشهد على استهداف المجتمع في سورية. وأحد محاور الاستهداف هو عبر الهجوم على مكوّنات الوعي أيّ الدين واللغة في بعديهما التاريخي والمستقبلي وفي دورهما في تماسك المجتمع. ومن هنا تأتي أهمية المنصة التي اختارها لدحض الكثير من الاتهامات التي وجّهت لبنية الدولة والمجتمع ليس فقط من قبل الخصوم والمتشدّدين الذين استعملوا الدين كوسيلة لأهداف سياسية لا علاقة بالدين بل للذين اعتبروا أنّ الحداثة هي عبر نقض الدين في المجتمع والدولة. والرسالة التي أراد إرسالها هي التكامل بين الدين والدولة عندما تكلّم عن «العلمانية» وبعض المفاهيم المغلوطة التي يتمّ ترويجها وعن إمكانية إخراج الدين من الدولة. فهذا لن يحصل إلاّ إذا تمّ إخراج الدين من المجتمع. وبما أنّ مقاربته للأمور تفيد بأنّ الدين ضرورة لتماسك المجتمع فإنّ ذلك يعني أنه لا يجوز وضع الدين في قفص الاتهام كعائق لتنمية المجتمع لأنه قاعدة أساسية لتماسكه وبقائه. وتشديده على الدور الذي يقوم به مجمع العلماء والعالمات هو لتثبيت تلك العلاقة ودحض أيّ فكرة أنّ الدولة القائمة في سورية هي ضدّ الدين كما يروّج له خصومها أو كما يعتقد البعض من «المتحرّرين» أو «العلمانيين». من جهة أخرى نفى مزاعم جماعات التعصّب والغلو والتوحّش بأنها تمثّل الإسلام. فهذه الجماعات ترتكب الكبائر المحرّمة في الدين وذلك عبر قتلهم للأبرياء والتمسّك بالطقوس على حساب المقاصد. وتشديده على المقاصد كان لافتاً لأنّ ذلك يعكس فهمه للإسلام وتمسّكه به والمختلف عن التفسيرات الضيّقة والحرفية والخارجة عن السياق.

صحيفة «واشنطن بوست» في عنوانها عن «فشل الدين» تنتمي إلى تيّار ليبرالي انتقده الرئيس السوري. استفاض الرئيس في كلمته عمّا سمّاه بـ «الليبرالية الحديثة» التي تهدف إلى سلخ الإنسان عن هويته ليس فقط بالمعنى السياسي أو الثقافي بل أيضاً من هويته الجنسية أو الجندرية كما سمّاها (الجندرية تعريب لكلمة «جندر» الإنكليزية التي تشير إلى جنس المرء من ذكر أو أنثى). وهذا يتنافى مع موروثنا الثقافي والديني. فكيف يمكن للمرء أن «يختار» هويته الجندرية بينما الطبيعة هي التي تقوم بذلك؟

وأوضح أنّ الليبرالية الحديثة تنقض مفهوم مرجعية الجماعة وتريد نقلها إلى مرجعية الفرد ما يسهل نزع الهوية وما تمثّلها. فمرجعية الفرد مدمّرة للمجتمع عبر تدمير الوحدة الأساسية له وهي العائلة ومن ثم القبيلة وأو العشيرة ومن ثم الوطن. كما تدعو تلك الليبرالية إلى تعميم ما هو مناف للأخلاق والصحة العامة كالدعوة لتعميم المخدّرات كما ذكر الرئيس وكما جاء في عنوان آخر في الصحيفة الأميركية، وهي إحدى الأبواق البارزة لليبرالية وتدّعي ذلك بدون خجل. فالدين غير مقبول عند هؤلاء الليبراليين الحديثيين على حدّ قوله خاصة لدوره في المجتمع. في هذا السياق يفتح الرئيس، سواء قصد ذلك أو لم يقصد، باب التفكير بالموروث الثقافي المستورد من الغرب. الرئيس الروسي بوتين انتقد الديمقراطية المستوردة والرئيس السوري انتقد الثقافة المستوردة. ونحن ندعو إلى بناء منظومة معرفية عربية منبثقة عن موروثنا الثقافي مع التمسك بالمخزون العلمي الذي كوّنه العالم عبر القرون.

الهجوم على الدين في المجتمع السوري، واستطراداً في المجتمع العربي أجمع، يأتي عبر كتابات تشكّك في مكوّنات الشرع الإسلامي بدءاً بالقرآن الكريم وثم في الحديث ووصولاً إلى الفقه. وحرص الرئيس السوري أن يربط بين الحالة السورية التي يعتبرها متقدّمة في هذا المجال وبين حالة العالم الإسلامي التي اعتبرها متراجعة، فسورية هي جزء من العالم الإسلامي ولها مكانتها المميّزة تاريخيا، في الماضي، والحاضر، والمستقبل. فهو حريص على الحفاظ على تلك المكانة وهذه هي إحدى مهام مجمع العلماء والعالمات. وفي ما يتعلّق بالقرآن الكريم أشار الرئيس إلى ما يتمّ تداوله في وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي حول «سريانية» القرآن. هذه إحدى الاتهامات وليست الوحيدة ولكن نكتفي بما ذكره الرئيس السوري. والمقصود في «سريانية» القرآن، أنّ القرآن الكريم مؤلّف منقول وليس من كلام الله الذي أوحى به إلى الرسول الأكرم. والتشكيك بالقرآن الكريم هدفه ضرب عصفورين بحجر واحد. الأول هو ضرب أساس الإسلام والثاني ضرب العروبة. صحيح أنّ العروبة موجودة قبل الإسلام ولكن على حدّ قول علماء آسيويين أشار إليهم الرئيس السوري في كلمته أنهم لا يتصوّرون الإسلام خارج العروبة. ونحن نقول إنّ العروبة مفتاح لفهم الإسلام كما أنّ الإسلام مفتاح لاكتشاف العروبة. ولا يغيب عنّا أدبية أحد مؤسّسي حزب البعث الأستاذ ميشال عفلق في محاضرته الشهيرة «في ذكرى الرسول العربي» حيث قال: «فالإسلام هو الهزة الحيوية التي تحرّك كامن القوى في الأمة العربية فتجيش بالحياة الحارة، جارفة سدود التقليد وقيود الاصطلاح. مرجعة اتصالها مرة جديدة بمعاني الكون العميقة، ويأخذها العجب والحماسة فتنشأ تعبّر عن إعجابها وحماستها بألفاظ جديدة وأعمال مجيدة، ولا تعود من نشوتها قادرة على التزام حدودها الذاتية، فتفيض على الأمم الأخرى فكراً وعملاً، وتبلغ هكذا الشمول.»

من هذه الزاوية انتقل إلى الهجوم الآخر على الدين وهو التشكيك باللغة العربية فقدّم مطالعة سريعة حول أصول اللسان العربي وعلاقته بالسريانية والآرامية. ومن جهة أخرى اعتبر الاجتهاد الفقهي إنجازاً مشكوراً للفقهاء الذين قدّموا التفاسير والاجتهادات ولكن كانت مبنية على أرضية معرفية غير التي هي موجودة اليوم. لكنه رفض تقييم تلك الاجتهادات بمعايير الحاضر لبيئات مختلفة في الماضي لما يحمل ذلك من إجحاف بحق الفقهاء الذين قدّموا ما لديهم ضمن ظروفهم. لذلك اعتبر أنّ من مهامّ مجمع العلماء والعالمات الذي يمثل أمامه هو تقديم اجتهادات متماهية مع شؤون العصر دون بالضرورة ترك الموروث الفقهي. نعتقد أنّ هذا موقف في غاية الأهمية ولكنه شائك لأنه يفتح باب عصرنة الفقه في عصر معادي للدين بشكل عام وللإسلام بشكل خاص. فالتمسّك بالموروث الفقهي من تماسك المجتمع المسلم عبر القرون وبالتالي يجب الانتباه والحذر من الشروع في اجتهادات قد تكسر ذلك التماسك. وبالنسبة لنا التماسك هو عنصر استراتيجي في عصر التجزئة والتفتيت. كما يجب الحذر من الوقوع في إنشاء فقه الدولة التي تتغيّر مع الظروف وبالتالي يهدّد بتماسك الفقه والشرع.

كما ذكرنا أعلاه ليس بمقدورنا تفصيل كلّ ما جاء في كلمة الرئيس بشّار الأسد لضيق المساحة ولعمق الإشكاليات التي تتلازم مع الطروحات الفكرية التي ذكرها. من الواضح أنّ أمامنا قائد شاب ولكن مخضرماً وواسع الاطلاع بالتاريخ والثقافة وبأهمية التجدّد الحضاري عبر التمسّك بالهوية الجامعة التي تصون وحدة المجتمع كمرتكز لتحقيق وحدة الأمة. فلا تجدّد في رأينا في ظلّ الضعف ولا قوّة في ظلّ التجزئة. كما أنّ المعركة ليست سياسية فحسب بل مجتمعية وثقافية وحضارية. هذا ما خرجنا به بعد الاستماع للكلمة مع الشعور بالاطمئنان حول مستقبل سورية ومستقبل الأمة العربية.

*كاتب وباحث اقتصادي سياسي

والأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي

هجوم على وزير الأوقاف السوري .. فعلى أي الجانبين ستكون؟

Posted on 2020/12/10 by naram.serjoonn

لاشك ان كلام الرئيس الاسد عن العروبة والاسلام والعلمانية يعبر عن الدوامات الفكرية التي تعصف بالعقل المشرقي والذي يبحث عن حلول للمعضلات العقائدية واللايديولوجية التي تصارعت في المنطقة وتتصارع .. وكلام الأسد هو كلام العارفين بطبيعة الصراع وطرق حله عن طريق فهمه .. عبر فهم مكوناته واختلافاتها المنطقية والضرورية وتوافقاتها المنطقية والضرورية ..
ويبدو ان الاحتكاكات الفكرية بين التيارات الدينية واللادينية لاتزال تعبر عن محاولات لايجاد معادلة الحل .. ولذلك نجد ان التيار الديني في الشرق لايزال يحاول ان يمارس نوعا من الوصاية على التيارات الأخرى فيما التيارات الاخرى تريد اقصاء الدين ومعاملته كمشكلة حضارية أكثر من كونه شكلا من أشكال الحضارة ومرحلة من مراحل تطور الفكر الانساني .. ولذلك شن موقع فيرل هجوما معاكسا على تصريحات السيد وزير الاوقاف معتبرا ان الوزير هو من مروجي الداعشية المقنعة .. فهل توافق على التوصيف ام تجد ان موقع فيرل يبالغ في توصيفه .. اقرأ واحكم بنفسك ولك انت ان تختار الى اي الجانبين تميل

رد من مركز #فيريل (المانيا) على خطبة الجمعة لـ #وزيرالأوقاف ..

” العروبة سابقة على الإسلام”

وزير أوقاف أم زعيم في #داعش؟

مركز فيريل للدراسات: لسنا في مركز فيريل للدراسات بواردِ الدفاع عن مُعتقد أو عقيدة أو طائفة أو حزب، لكننا سندافع بالتأكيد عن سوريا كوحدة متكاملة أرضاً وحضارةً وشعباً، وهذا مبدؤنا الذي عنه لا نحيد. أتحفنا وزير الأوقاف السوري عبد الستار السيد بتاريخ 04 كانون الأول 2020بخطبة جمعة طائفية عنصرية إقصائية. الخطبة تلك كانت في جامع خديجة الكبرى بطرطوس وعلى الهواء مباشرة، وعنوانها (الرد على طروحات ما يسمى الأمة السورية). خطبة عنصرية طائفية إقصائية تحدّث الوزير المذكور بطريقة طائفية عنصرية هازئة من كل ما هو غير عربي وغير إسلامي، ناسخاً آلاف السنوات من تاريخ سوريا وحضارتها، واصفاً باقي القوميات والحضارات والطوائف والأديان بأنها “مُتفرّق وضئيل”. لو أنّ ما قالهُ عبد الستار صدرَ عن أميرٍ داعشي أو من جبهة النصرة، لما استغربنا، أما أن يصدر عن صاحبِ كرسيّ لاصق في الوزارة السورية، فهذا ما يدفعنا للتساؤل؛ إلى متى سيبقى الحبلُ على غاربهِ؟ (في منطقتنا عقيدتان أساسيتان هما العروبة والإسلام، وكلّ ما سواهما مُتفرّقٌ وضئيل. الأساس هو الإسلام في هذه الدول والمجتمعات) عبد الستار السيد. لم يسمع عبد الستار بأنّ في سوريا قوميات وحضارات وأديانٌ أخرى سبقت الإسلام والعروبة بآلاف السنين. لم يسمع بأنّ سوريا كانت مهداً لـ33 حضارة ودولة عبر التاريخ. (كلّ الحروب التي تمت وتتم منذ المغول والتتار إلى حروب الفرنجة إلى الاستعمار الفرنسي والبريطاني إلى الاحتلال الأميركي… إلى الحرب على سوريا وإلى وإلى، كل ما يجري يستهدفُ الإسلام والعروبة) عبد الستار السيد. هل نسيتَ احتلالاً استمر أربعة قرون يا سيادة الوزير المعتدل؟ لماذا تناسيتَ عملية التتريك ومحو العروبة التي قامت وتقوم بها الدولة العثمانية البائدة والحالية؟ يبدو أنك تعتبرُ الإسلام العثماني نموذجي تقوم باستنساخهِ في سوريا… (شو هاي #الأمةالسورية؟ هل سمعتم بالأمة السورية؟) عبد الستار السيد.


هذا حديثُ وزير وليس عنصر في داعش أو جبهة النصرة
(أصلنا فينيقيّون أصلنا سريان أصلنا كذا) عبد الستار السيد. فجأة يقفز إلى الأكراد فيخلط شعبان برمضان (المشكلة الكردية).
(لا يمكنُ الفصل بين #العروبة و #الإسلام، ومَن يستهدف العروبة يستهدف الإسلام واللغة العربية) عبد الستار السيد.
دمج العروبة بالإسلام، وانتقاد أحدها يعني انتقاد الآخر، هو مبدأ تكفيري بحت لا يختلف عن طريقة داعش والقاعدة، وهنا لا يصح أن نُعيبَ على الوهابيين والإخوان والإرهابيين في شيء قبلَ أن نُعيبَ على وزير الأوقاف السوري.
اسمع يا عبد الستار
خطبتكَ فتنة لأنها تُنكرُ وجود قومياتٍ وحضاراتٍ قبل القومية العربية في سوريا. خطبتك فتنة يا عبد الستار لأنها تُنكرُ وجود ديانات أخرى قبل الديانة الإسلامية في سوريا، يبدو أنك لم تسمع بالصابئة واليهود واليزيديين والمسيحيين؟
هؤلاء الذينَ أسميتهم “مُتفرّق وضئيل” هم الأصل، ومَن لا أصل له لا رباطَ على لسانه. السريان والآشوريون والكلدان نفّذت بهم معشوقتك تركيا مئات المجازر وتم تهجير وأسلمة معظم مَن بقيَ حيّاً، لهذا تناقص عددهم.
في العصر الحديث يا عبد الستار؛ #ناصيفاليازجي صاحب مجمع البحرين ونار القرى، المسيحي الذي كان يحفظ القرآن آية بعد آية، والذي حارب عملية تتريك وترجمة القرآن إلى اللغة التركية. #بطرسالبستاني هو أولُ مَن ألف موسوعة عربية وقاموساً عربياً ودار معارف عربية. الأب لويس نقولا اليسوعي صاحبُ اللغات السبع، ألّف “المُنجد” وتاريخ الأدب العربي. مارون حنّا عبود صاحب الستين كتاباً في الأدب العربي… هؤلاء هم الـ “ضئيل” يا كثير.
هل حدّثوك عن جبران خليل جبران ونسيب عريضة وأنطوان صقّال وميخائيل نُعيمة وعبد المسيح حداد وإيليا أبو ماضي وإلياس القدسي وندرة حداد وحنّا مينا وماري معمر وجورج سالم ووو…
يقول العظيم #جبران خليل جبران: “لو أن موتي سيفعل شيئاً عظيماً من أجل سوريا، فلتأخذ سوريا حياتي”. من رسائله لماري هكسل صفحة 177 توفيق صايغ. ويقول أيضاً في رسالة إلى أميل زيدان: “أنا من القائلين بوحدة سوريا الجغرافية وباستقلال البلاد تحت حكم نيابي وطني”.
معظمُ هؤلاء العظماء آمنوا بالأمة والحضارة السورية، ورغم ذلك حافظوا على اللغة العربية وصانوها وألّفوا بها مئات الكتب والقواميس والمراجع، ولم يُهاجموا القومية العربية، هل تعلم لماذا يا عبد الستار؟ لأنهم عظماء…
العروبة ضرورة وليست مصيراً يا عبد الستار
مَنْ يؤمن بالأمة السورية لا يتعارضُ إيمانه هذا مع العروبة… صعبة عليك؟ سأبسطها لك. العروبة موجودة قبل الإسلام لهذا الربط بينهما سلاحُ الطائفيين والإقصائيين. أتعلم أنّ #طرفةبنالعبد و #امرؤالقيس وعدي بن زيد العبادي والنابغة الذبياني و #جرير بن عبد المسيح الضبعي و #الزيرسالم الذي شوهتم سيرته بمسلسلاتكم الكاذبة، كل هؤلاء كانوا عرباً مسيحيّون آمنوا بالعروبة قبل الإسلام.
هل سمعتَ بالملكة ماويا العربية التي سكنت خناصر؟ أسمعتَ بمملكة الغساسنة ومملكة بصرى وفيليب العربي؟
لا نؤمنُ في مركز فيريل للدراسات بوجود رابطٍ بين العرب والإسلام أو العروبة والإسلام، الأمران بالنسبة لنا منفصلان تماماً، فهناك عربٌ من كافة الأديان والاعتقادات، نحترمها جميعاً مهما كانت. لكننا لا نسمحُ بوصف العرب والعروبة بصفاتٍ سيئة، العربُ، وبحيادية تامة، كانوا أصحاب حضارة وقوة وممالك، وصلوا بها إلى حدود فارس ومصر وآسيا الوسطى في العصر الذي أسميتموهُ جهلاً وتزويراً بالعصر الجاهلي.
بالمقابل؛ لا نسمحُ بإنكار وجود باقي الحضارات والقوميات والأديان، والذي يحترمُ نفسه، يحترم التاريخ ويبتعدُ عن التعابير #الشوارعية (((شو هاي الأمة السورية!!!))).
الأمة والحضارة السورية موجودة وهي الأصل، شئتَ أم أبيت يا عبد الستار… العروبة امتداد للأمة السورية وعمقٌ استراتيجيٌّ لها وليس العكس. في سوريا نشأت عشرات الممالك والحضارات غير العربية.
عندما غزا العرب سوريا هل كانت خالية؟ أجب عن هذا السؤال يا عبد الستار… أين ذهب سكانها؟ تبخروا أم ابتلعتهم أفواه الغزاة؟ السريان موجودون قبل أجدادك يا وزير يا معتدل وكذلك الفنينيقيّون والآشوريون والكلدان والسومريون وووو… حتى الأرمن كانت سوريا ضمن مملكتهم قبل الميلاد…
حضارة سوريا عمرها 12000 عاماً، ولن تستطيع أنتَ وأمثالك مسح هذا التاريخ بخطبة #طائفية #عنصرية مقيتة، يا مَن صدعت رؤوس العباد باعتدالك…
سوريا واحة زهور متنوعة فوّاحة، وفيها أشواك أيضاً. إن كنتَ تنوي وتُخطط لإقامة دولة دينية طائفية عنصرية في سوريا تكون “مرجعها”، فهذا لا يُعطيكَ الحق بتزوير التاريخ وإقصاء الآخر ومحو الأصل. أنتَ يا وزير يا معتدل؛ كتابٌ مفتوح وباللغة العربية، كتابٌ بات إغلاقهُ بل إتلافهُ حاجة مُلحّة…


مركز فيريل للدراسات . 08.12.2020

تعليق على رد مركز فيريل للدراسات

داعش لا تقتصر علي اصحاب الدقون بل كل من يرفض الاعتراف بالاخر بغص النظر عن دينه او لونة او عرقه، لم استمع لخطبة وزير الأوقاف واتفق مع مركز فيريل للدراسات لكني أسأل المركز هل الوزير أكثر داعشية من ماكرون رئبس جمهورية الاخاء والمساواة والكثير من مدعي العلمانية. المركز يتحدث عن العزو العربي لسوريا تم يناقض نفسه فيتحدث الغساسنة وينسى ان الأمة السورية التي فتحها واستعمرها العرب قد غزت واستعمرت اسبانيا ل 800 عام كما أسال المركز ماذا عن اليمن وهجرات اليمنببن نحو الشمال؟؟

أنصح المركز بالاستماع الى محاضرة الاسد

فيديوات ذات صلة

كلمة السيد الرئيس بشار الأسد للسادة العلماء 25.8.2011
كلمة السيد الرئيس بشار الأسد أمام مجموعة من السادة العلماء ورجال الدين وأئمة المساجد والداعيات 2014

مقالات ذات صلة

Assad and Islam of the Levant الأسد وإسلام بلاد الشام

الأسد للعلماء: لقيادة المواجهة مع مشروع الليبراليّة دفاعاً عن الهويّة بوجه التفلّت والتطرّف

Photo of الأسد للعلماء: لقيادة المواجهة مع مشروع الليبراليّة دفاعاً عن الهويّة بوجه التفلّت والتطرّف

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad launched from a gathering of scientists in Damascus a call for the renaissance of scientists with the task of leading the confrontation with the liberalism project, which aims to strike the national identity and the ideological depth represented by Islam, together with social and family values, considering that this project aimed at dismantling societies and opening the way to the project of hegemony, This project stands behind both fragmentation, Misrepresentation and extremism, Assad accused French President Emmanuel Macron and Turkish President Recep Erdogan of sharing roles in managing extremist climates to strike the true identity of societies, He called for realising the lack of contradiction between their Islamic affiliation, their national identity and their secular state.

Assad and The Islam of the Levant

Nasser Qandil

 When an Islamic reference with the rank and knowledge of Sheikh Maher Hammoud said that when he listened to the speech of President Bashar al-Assad yesterday, in a council of leading scholars in Syria, he was surprised that the level of talk and depth in the issues of jurisprudence, doctrine, Qur’an and interpretation matched the senior scholars, as he was surprised by the clear and deep visions in dealing with issues affecting the Islamic world in deeper matters than politics, this is some of what will be the case for anyone who has been able to hear the flow of President Assad in dealing with matters of great complexity, sensitivity and accuracy, over the course of an hour. He is half-spoken in the sequence of the transition from one title to another, and supports every idea of religious evidence, Qur’anic texts, prophetic hadiths and historical evidence, and he paints the framework of the battle he is fighting intellectually to address decades-old dilemmas known as titles such as secularism, religiosity, Arabism and Islam, moderation and extremism, the task of scholars in interpreting and understanding biography and providing example in the front lines of identity battles, in drawing the paths of social peace, and establishing a system of moral, national and family values.

 Assad is crowned by efforts led by great reformers in the Arab and Islamic worlds to address these thorny issues, courageously advancing to this difficult, risky course, taking it upon himself as an Islamic, nationalist and secular thinker, to present a new version of the doctrinal, intellectual and philosophical understanding, seeking To replace imaginary virtual battles with historical reconciliation between lofty concepts and values related to peoples and elites, but divided around them, and fighting, instead of looking for the points of fundamental convergence that begin, as President Al-Assad says, of human nature, divine year and historical year. High values cannot collide, people’s attachment to them cannot be contradictory, and scientists and thinkers must resolve the contradiction when it emerges, and dismantle it. This is the task that Assad is dealing with by diving into the world of jurisprudence, thought and philosophy, and he is putting his hand on a serious intellectual wound, which is his description of the role played by the liberal school based on the destruction and dismantling of all societal structures, and elements of identity, to turn societies into mere individuals racing to live without meaning and controls, closer to the animal instinctive concept, and to the law of the jungle that governs it.

The historical role of Islam in the East, its structural and historical overlap with the manufacturing of major transformations, and universal identities, a title that needs the courage of Assad to approach it in terms of adherence to secularism, nationalism, prompts Assad to reveal the danger of realizing those who look to take control of this East of the importance of occupying Islam, as an investment less expensive than occupying the land, and doing its place and more. Whoever occupies Islam and speaks his tongue cuts more than half way to achieve his project, and reveals the danger of Assad realizing this in the heart of the war on Syria as one of the most prominent titles of the war prepared to control Syria, and in parallel the demonstrations of Islam in Syria, elites, scientists and the social environment. of resistance to the projects of intellectual, political and related occupation Seeking to destroy identity, belief, family cohesion, morality and value system, which carried the project of extremism financed and programmed with hundreds of satellite channels to spread strife and sow fear and encourage terrorism, with a neat rotation between the two sides feeding each other, and pushing Syrian scientists in the face of the precious sacrifices of the ranks of scientists, and they played in this confrontation a role that President Assad places as the role of the army on the front sands.

 Historically, Syria has been the focal point of the national identity, from which Islam has established its status as a cultural political project, and in front of doctrinal and religious schools divided between Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the aspiration for Islam in the Levant has always been to promote the Islam of al-Azhar, and together constitute the historical turning point in the course of the East, in harmony with the understanding of the national identity of society and the secular foundation of the state. In this historic conversation, it is clear that President Assad has taken this important task upon himself as a thinker, not just as head of state.

الأسد للعلماء: لقيادة المواجهة مع مشروع الليبراليّة دفاعاً عن الهويّة بوجه التفلّت والتطرّف

Photo of الأسد للعلماء: لقيادة المواجهة مع مشروع الليبراليّة دفاعاً عن الهويّة بوجه التفلّت والتطرّف

أطلق الرئيس السوري الدكتور بشار الأسد من لقاء علمائي جامع في دمشق الدعوة لنهضة العلماء بمهمة قيادة المواجهة مع مشروع الليبراليّة الذي يستهدف ضرب الهوية القوميّة والعمق العقائديّ الذي يمثله الإسلام، ومعهما القيم الاجتماعية والأسرية، معتبراً أن هذا المشروع الهادف لتفكيك المجتمعات وفتح الطريق لمشروع الهيمنة، هو الذي يقف وراء التفلّت والتطرّف معاً، متهماً الرئيس الفرنسي امانويل ماكرون والرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان بتقاسم الأدوار في إدارة مناخات التطرّف لضرب الهوية الحقيقيّة للمجتمعات التي دعاها الأسد الى إدراك عدم التناقض بين انتمائها الإسلاميّ وهويتها القوميّة ودولتها العلمانيّة.

الأسد وإسلام بلاد الشام

ناصر قنديل

 عندما يقول مرجع إسلامي بمرتبة وعلم الشيخ ماهر حمود أنه عندما استمع الى حديث الرئيس بشار الأسد أول أمس، في مجلس ضمّ كبار العلماء في سورية، فوجئ بأن مستوى الحديث وعمقه في قضايا الفقه والعقيدة والقرآن والتفسير يُضاهي كبار العلماء، كما فوجئ بالرؤى الواضحة والعميقة في تناول القضايا التي تطال العالم الإسلامي في شؤون أعمق من السياسة، فهذا بعض ما سيقع عليه كل مَن أتيح له سماع تدفّق الرئيس الأسد في تناول شؤون شديدة التعقيد والحساسية والدقة، على مدى ساعة ونصف متحدثاً بتسلسل الانتقال من عنوان الى آخر، وتدعيم كل فكرة بالشواهد الدينيّة والنصوص القرآنية والأحاديث النبوية والشواهد التاريخية، وهو يرسم إطار المعركة التي يخوضها فكرياً لمعالجة معضلات عمرها عقود طويلة عرفت بعناوين، مثل العلمانية والتديُّن، والعروبة والإسلام، والاعتدال والتطرف، ومهمة العلماء في التفسير وفهم السيرة وتقديم المثال في الخطوط الأماميّة لمعارك الهوية، وفي رسم مسارات السلم الاجتماعي، وإرساء منظومة القيم الأخلاقية والوطنية والأسرية.

 يتوّج الأسد مساعي قادها إصلاحيّون كبار في العالمين العربي والإسلامي لتناول هذه القضايا الشائكة، متقدماً بشجاعة لخوض هذا المسلك الوعر، والمحفوف بالمخاطر فيأخذ على عاتقه كمفكر إسلاميّ وقوميّ وعلمانيّ، تقديم نسخة جديدة من الفهم الفقهيّ والفكريّ والفلسفيّ، تسعى لاستبدال المعارك الافتراضيّة الوهميّة بمصالحة تاريخية بين مفاهيم وقيم سامية تتعلق بها الشعوب والنخب، لكنها تنقسم حولها، وتتقاتل، بدلاً من أن تبحث عن نقاط التلاقي الجوهري التي تنطلق كما يقول الرئيس الأسد من الفطرة البشريّة، والسنة الإلهيّة والسنة التاريخيّة. فالقيم السامية لا يمكن لها أن تتصادم، وتعلّق الشعوب بها لا يمكن أن يأتي متناقضاً، وعلى العلماء والمفكرين حل التناقض عندما يظهر، وتفكيكه. وهذه هي المهمة التي يتصدّى لها الأسد بالغوص في عالم الفقه والفكر والفلسفة، وهو يضع يده على جرح فكري خطير يتمثل بتوصيفه للدور الذي تقوم به المدرسة الليبرالية القائمة على تدمير وتفكيك كل البنى المجتمعية، وعناصر الهوية، لتحويل المجتمعات الى مجرد أفراد يتسابقون على عيش بلا معنى ولا ضوابط، أقرب للمفهوم الحيوانيّ الغرائزيّ، ولشريعة الغاب التي تحكمه.

 الدور التاريخيّ للإسلام في الشرق، وتداخله التركيبي والتاريخي مع صناعة التحوّلات الكبرى، والهويات الجامعة، عنوان يحتاج الى شجاعة الأسد لمقاربته من منطلق التمسك بالعلمانيّة، والقوميّة، يدفع الأسد للكشف عن خطورة إدراك الذين يتطلعون لوضع اليد على هذا الشرق لأهميّة احتلال الإسلام، كاستثمار أقل كلفة من احتلال الأرض، ويقوم مقامها وأكثر. فمن يحتلّ الإسلام ويلبس لبوسه وينطق بلسانه يقطع أكثر من نصف الطريق لتحقيق مشروعه، ويكشف الأسد خطورة إدراكه لهذا الأمر في قلب الحرب على سورية كواحد من أبرز العناوين للحرب التي أعدّت للسيطرة على سورية، وبالتوازي ما أظهره الإسلام في سورية، من النخب والعلماء والبيئة الاجتماعية من قدرة مقاومة لمشاريع الاحتلال الفكري، والسياسي، وما يتصل بها من سعي لتدمير الهوية والعقيدة والترابط الأسري والأخلاق ومنظومة القيم، وهو ما حمله مشروع التطرّف المموّل والمبرمج بمئات الفضائيّات لبثّ الفتن وزرع الخوف والتشجيع على الإرهاب، بتناوب متقن بين طرفَيْه يغذي أحدهما الآخر، ودفع علماء سورية في مواجهته تضحيات غالية من صفوف العلماء، وأدوا في هذه المواجهة دوراً يضعه الرئيس الأسد بمصاف دور الجيش على الجبهات.

 تاريخياً، كانت سورية هي نقطة الارتكاز التي تأسست عليها الهويّة القوميّة، والتي امتلك منها الإسلام صفته كمشروع سايسيّ حضاريّ، وأمام مدارس فقهيّة ودينيّة تتوزّع بين الوهابية والأخوان المسلمين بقيادة سعودية وتركية، كان التطلع دائماً لإسلام بلاد الشام ليستنهض معه إسلام الأزهر، ويشكلان معاً نقطة التحول التاريخية في مسار الشرق، بالتناغم مع فهم الهوية القوميّة للمجتمع، والأساس العلماني للدولة. وفي هذا الحديث التاريخي، يبدو بوضوح أن الرئيس الأسد قد أخذ هذه المهمة الجليلة على عاتقه كمفكّر، وليس فقط كرئيس للدولة.

فيديوات متعلقة

كلمة الرئيس الأسد خلال مشاركته في الاجتماع الدوري لوزارة الأوقاف

كلمة الرئيس الأسد خلال مشاركته في الاجتماع الدوري لوزارة الأوقاف يوم أمس الموجودة على الرابط ادناه، تعد محاضرة فلسفية عميقة يتناول فيها

مفاهيم عقدية ومسائل دينية شائكة بنظرة عميقة وفاحصة، ويتحدث عن أخطار اللبرالية الحديثة (المفاهيم ما بعد الحداثوية) على أصل الإنسان والإنسانية، وعن مفاهيم المجتمع والاسرة في الدين

ومغالطات اطروحات فصل الدين عن الدولة والأخلاق، ويضع كل هذا في اطاره الموسع في نقاش العروبة والإسلام في المعركة السياسية والاستعمارية القائمة على اوطاننا

والمستمرة منذ زهاء القرن من الزمن، مع الاستدلالات الشرعية حسب الأصول.

القى الرئيس الأسد هذه الكلمة في جامع العثمان، فهكذا تكون الخطب الدينية بحق، وكان لافتا شموليتها، ناهيك عن الإجابة على بعض المسائل الفقهية

والفلسفية الشائكة التي كانت الإجابة عليها صعبة رغم كثرة الكُتّاب والخطباء.

عمرو علان

كلمة الرئيس الأسد خلال مشاركته في الاجتماع الدوري لوزارة الأوقاف

Joe Biden Is Unlikely To Fix The Problem Of American Islamophobia

By Denis Korkodinov

Source

In the United States, representatives of the Muslim community have high hopes for the new head of state, Joe Biden. The reason for this was the promise to lift the ban on the Islamophobic campaign and create comfortable living conditions for American Muslims. However, experts are confident that the promises made by Joe Biden and his deputy Kamala Harris are populism.

According to the expert community, the restrictions imposed on Muslims in the United States can hardly be lifted on the basis of a single decision by the head of the White House. Islamophobia is ingrained in the life of American society, as a result of which it cannot be neutralized by political will alone. In this regard, American intolerance towards Muslims is a certain manifestation of internal aggression maintained at the mental level mainly in relation to its own citizens. Undoubtedly, it was the state institutions of the United States that over the decades have created the “ideal” conditions for the development of Islamophobia. Exercising total control over the activities and movement of representatives of the Muslim community and supporting programs to combat “radical Islam”, Washington purposefully instilled hatred of the followers of Islam in American society.

It is worth noting that, according to experts, only in the period from 2001 to 2015 in the United States, Muslim public and religious figures were much more likely to be prosecuted on terrorism charges than representatives of other confessions. Moreover, it was American Muslims who received much harsher criminal penalties, which is evidence of a biased American justice system.

Similar cases became popular under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, when only Muslims were involved in the “anti-state conspiracy” case. It is noteworthy that weapons were found on practically all Muslims accused in this case. At the same time, not a single “white” American or supporter of ultra-right ideology was involved in the case, even as a suspect.

The same Islamophobic trend is evident in the American media environment. Thus, in the specified period of time, 2001-2015, the number of anti-Muslim publications in the New York Times and Washington Post alone was 7.7 times higher than the number of publications in which representatives of other religious denominations were mentioned.

Meanwhile, this is only the public part of American life. There are many more manifestations of Islamophobia at the everyday level, when ordinary Muslims face many restrictions on a daily basis on the basis of following the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. In particular, in some American catering establishments, Muslims are prohibited from entering, and the local police can arrest a person without charge only because of his belief in Allah.

These problems are ingrained in the United States, as a result of which the new head of state, Joe Biden, is unlikely to be able to instantly change the situation.

The situation is complicated by the fact that Donald Trump still refuses to admit defeat. Based on this, he can deliberately use the factor of Islamophobia to provoke new acts of violence in order to put pressure on the Joe Biden cabinet.

It would be naive to believe that Islamophobia in the United States arose under Donald Trump. However, it was with the assistance of Donald Trump that American intolerance towards Muslims was elevated to the level of a national brand. Therefore, to eradicate this phenomenon, it will be necessary not only to change attitudes towards Muslims using political decisions. Work is also needed to overcome anti-Muslim hatred at the mental level of American society.

US partitioned by 2 presidents: worst-case election scenario realized

November 09, 2020

US partitioned by 2 presidents: worst-case election scenario realized
Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV 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 ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

by Ramin Mazaheri and crossposted with PressTV

It’s impossible for the US presidential election to have gone worse for the empire: America now has two presidents.

That can’t be denied, yet their mainstream media is spinning like mad the idea that there is no problem: The election is over and that Democrat Joe Biden is the president-elect. This is likely a biased view, but it’s certainly terrible journalism. Journalists have the right to do whatever they want – project election winners, ignore half the electorate, talk about “partition” – but we have no legal power to decide who actually won.

Not only has a certainly narrow vote not been certified, but the votes aren’t even all counted yet. And it’s not as if this vote wasn’t already disputed for months in the public eye. And it’s not as if there were’t several hundred lawsuits filed before the vote even took place. And it’s not as if there won’t be many lawsuits dated after the November 3rd vote.

But to their clearly anti-Trump mainstream media: “Nothing to see here, move along.”

Seriously? American journalism in action is really something to see.…

The media keeps pointing out that all the lawsuits have failed so far, but it just takes is one and it goes to the top – the Supreme Court deciding this election continues to look not just possible but probable. The idea that American judges are mostly liberal rebels and not by-the-book conservatives is preposterous – they are judges, after all. Record absentee balloting and an incumbent who focuses on his rights and benefits first, last and always both remind us how very not by-the-book this election is.

The ultimate fault for the current “Avignon Papacy” situation – the Roman Catholic church had two popes for most of the 14th century – lays not with the media but with the candidates, and especially Joe Biden. For months he bemoaned the unpredictability of Trump, and yet Biden declared victory Saturday based merely on an AP projection. It was an incredibly self-interested, dangerous, destablising and confidence-shaking move to make – it was a very Trumpian.

If the very slim numbers (Biden is up by an average of just 30,000 votes in three different states) were flipped and Trump declared early the mainstream media would be up in arms, and rightly so. Biden continues to – as the first debate reminded us – willingly jump down to the Trumpian unpresidential gutter, and yet because Trump licks the gutter’s floor Biden is somehow given a free pass.

Red state/blue state now officially outdated: it’s Trumpism vs. ‘universal values’ holdouts

The former was based on two things: a nation divided by new wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as a nation with huge inequalities between rural and urban/suburban citizens (in access to technology, cultural influence and standard of living). It was rural Americans who fought in these wars of imperialism (and not mere revenge for 9/11), which drastically shaped the communities they lived in, thus making the divide especially inflamed.

However, in 2020 Texas almost flipped Democrat?! Arizona – the proud home of reactionary radical John “Bomb bomb bomb Iran” McCain – is currently flipping Democrat?! Several Great Lakes states have already flipped back and forth in the Trump era. Trumpism has – for better or for worse – obviously changed American politics in a major way because unthinkable realignments are happening, and this forces us to eject old paradigms if we want to understand what is going on here.

The new partition is “brazen imperialism” versus “soft imperialism”.

But here’s our dilemma: Which party represents which? That we pause is entirely the change to grasp in 2020.

Democrats have become the party which backs the Deep State, “humanitarian interventions”, “universal values” which are a code phrase for their preferred values, free trade (which benefits the rich the most), censorship and which evinces a dangerous evangelism and hysterical self-righteousness (as their failed three-year Russophobia campaign showed). Violent evangelism is forbidden in Islam, but not in the Protestant or Catholic West.

What can we call French President Emmanuel Macron’s unprecedented declaration that Islamophobia is now state policy but a hysterical evangelism in favor of Western secularism? It’s hardly as if secularism has produced more moral or just governance than in religious-inspired nations, yet Macron’s faith cannot be shaken no matter how many innocent people his anti-Muslim tirades get killed.

And who is more globalist, “universal values” and pro-European Union than “neoliberal strongman” Macron, no matter how many French Yellow Vests lose an eye just for insisting that neoliberalism means the colonisation of the average of Westerner by an international 1%, and also that the post-1991 EU is a “neoliberal empire”?

I broaden out the US experience because in the other Western imperialist nations we clearly see similar cultural movements – engaging in imperialism inherently produces exceptional and distorted cultures. Ex-Labor chief Jeremy Corbyn was just suspended by his own party for absurd anti-Semitism allegations because that is what hysterical imperialists do to those who don’t embrace 1%-led globalisation. It used to be that such denigrations were limited to conservatives, but Corbyn proves how flexible our analysis needs to be precisely because traditional Western paradigms have become outdated.

Trump has signalled the start of a new era: the Cold War ended in 1991, US unipolar dominance (and thus Western dominance) ran from 1992-2016, and Trumpism coincides with the Great Recession-era propelled return to a multipolar era.

The undeniable electoral rejection of a “Democratic Blue Wave” in favor of “Trumpian Republicans” – where Trump increased his vote totals with every ethnic group and gender except White males – shows that the concept of White male supremacism being the foundation of Trumpism is as false as the labels of anti-Semitism pinned on Corbyn and the Yellow Vests. Trumpism is something bigger: it certainly must now include the idea of a Western domestic rebellion against their politicians who have presided over (or caused) the establishment of our new multipolar era.

The digital era does not seem to lend itself to the values still required to thrive in rural areas, so far, but last week’s vote totals prove that we cannot say that Trumpism is simply a “red state” phenomenon anymore.

This is not new: heads are divided in the US metaphorically, and maybe soon literally

Trump is planning to hold “recount rallies”, to publish the obituaries of dead people alleged to have voted in the election, to sue various state election boards, and to generally keep refusing to play by the rules of the globalist/“universal values” dominated US establishment (which is the basis of Trump’s popularity). You might be shocked by all that, or oppose all that, but you cannot say that Trump supporters should be frozen out of how this election concludes unless you openly prefer unilateral declarations to democracy with checks and balances.

A concession speech by one candidate is not legally required, but it is obviously a cultural necessity. How long can US media pretend that the election is over even though there has been no concession speech?

That’s an incredibly dangerous question to ask, and undoubtedly terrible journalism, and more proof that this election could not have gone worse for Americans if it had tried.

What would have happened Saturday in Chicago if pro-Trump supporters had gone to Trump Tower, where all day and night there were hundreds of people celebrating Biden’s “victory”? I can tell you, as I was there: a whole lot of innocent young people would have gotten their heads split open.

That’s the danger Biden just caused, and which is being increased by poor journalism and which has only just begun.

Biden set off this era of two presidents rather than counselling patience and faith in the process amid crisis. Biden has also set the stage for dramatic domestic disillusionment with their electoral process and political structure. Trump voters are incensed, and Biden just trolled them even though the US mainstream media was already doing exactly that for him.

In 2009 the moderate candidate declared early in Iran’s presidential election and after periods of peaceful rallies and counter-rallies it got violent. America should have learned from Iran’s experience (shared by countless other examples in modern history) but apparently Biden is not smart enough despite 47 years experience as a public servant. Nobody ever assumes great public service and intelligence from Trump, and certainly not the virtue of forbearance, but Biden promised better yet failed to deliver on what he said was his Day 1.

Biden was supposed to be better than Trump, but this was the worst start possible.

He can smile for the cameras, and create a corona task force which can’t start until January 21, and ignore the calls to finish counting the vote and to certify it, but the simple reality is that 70 million Trump voters are not going away in 2020 any more than they went away after they won in 2016. They need to be understood – they were unexpected, at the very least, and seem to herald a new era, at the most.

Trump’s re-election would probably not be good for the same countries as in 2016 – Iran, Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela and any other of the few nations with a socialist-inspired revolution/movement – and so we see why leaders and diplomats from these nations especially want him gone: Trump cannot be reasoned with regarding these revolutionary (unique) nations. Who knows what a Trump second term would bring? But Biden continues to show plenty of worrying evidence that he plans to get away with the same unilateral nonsense Trump set the precedent for, rather than re-establishing basic decorum, concern for others and diplomacy. I examined this notion last month in an editorial titled, “US debate debacle shows Democrats will adopt Trumpian self-interest globally”, and Biden’s reckless premature declaration shows the idea has a worrying amount of merit.

Unilateral nonsense is not good for the American 99% or the 99% of any other nation. With two presidents, American nonsense has only doubled.

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

Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism not merely a cult (1/2) – November 5, 2020

Results are in: Americans lose, duopoly wins, Trumpism wasn’t a cult of personality (2/2) – November 6, 2020

4 years of anti-Trumpism shaping MSM vote coverage, but expect long fight – November 7, 2020

Why Is American Islamophobia Dangerous?

By Dennis Korkodinov

Source

t is noteworthy that in the period from October 22 to 26, 2007, neoconservatives in the United States first introduced the concept of “Islamo-fascism” into public discourse. Thus, they intended to draw an analogy between the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the ideology that during the Second World War posed a threat to humanity.

Modern tendencies of Islamophobia in the United States, which have spread, moreover, in most European countries, testify to the traditional denigration of the followers of Islam.

It is noteworthy that in the period from October 22 to 26, 2007, neoconservatives in the United States first introduced the concept of “Islamo-fascism” into public discourse. Thus, they intended to draw an analogy between the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the ideology that during the Second World War posed a threat to humanity. This defamation policy, despite strong criticism from the Muslim community, has become a national brand of the United States, thanks to George W. Bush. It was this head of the White House who was the first to elevate Islamophobia into the cult of modern Americanism, presenting all Muslims (regardless of their country of residence, gender, age, and social status) in the image of terrorists.

Such a lie, artificially popularized by American politicians, suggests that this was not only a manifestation of religious intolerance. This was the announcement of a kind of “crusade” of the United States against Muslims and all those who sympathize with them. The leader of this campaign was the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which brought together ardent artists and Islamophobes who were ready to persecute representatives of the Muslim community with weapons in their hands.

One could express doubts about the seriousness of American Islamophobia, believing that it poses no real threat. However, the danger of this kind of religious intolerance is that it has a lot of influential supporters who have practically unlimited resources and power in order to elevate the persecution of Muslims into a state of total sectarian strife. And, given that Islamophobia directly affects the emergence of military conflicts in the Greater Middle East, such threats should be considered extremely realistic.

It is quite obvious that at present the main hotbeds of war in the Middle East arise precisely in those countries where Islam has a fairly strong position and, often in these countries, Islamic clergy are at the top of political power or perform the function of an “alternative government” (Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria). In addition, another distinctive feature of these countries is the huge reserves of oil and natural gas. In this regard, for the United States, the tandem combination of Islam and oil serves as a compelling reason for military intervention.

Thus, the theme of “fighting terrorism” postulated by Washington is only a smokescreen for destroying Islam and seizing the oil that is protected by the followers of Islam. This explains why the United States has been fighting the Ayatollah regime in Iran for several decades, refusing to withdraw troops from Iraqi territory, trying to influence Hezbollah in order to dismember Lebanon, and supporting the radical Syrian opposition.

The main goal of the American administration is a permanent war with Islam, which US politicians refuse to accept as a given, as an ideology that has become a system-forming element of the Arab states, has led to the emergence of prominent religious figures, starting from the Prophet Mohamed, and has created a unique means of communication between peoples, states, and civilizations.

Such a policy is in its savagery comparable to the policy of dictatorial regimes. The Propaganda Minister of the Third Reich Joseph Goebbels said that if a lie is repeated enough times, it becomes true, at least for those who believe in it. In this regard, by constantly promoting Islamophobia, the United States hopes that sooner or later the supporters of this religious intolerance will become the majority, which will lead to a complete discrediting of Islam.

Déjà Vu in France: Hypocrisy of the French State. “Freedom of Speech” versus Islamophobia

“Freedom of speech should never ever glorify the freedom to insult, to mock, to humiliate another person or community or civilisation”

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

Global Research, November 02, 2020

As events unfold in France centring around Islamophobia, there is a feeling of déjà vu. We have witnessed a few times before this sequence of events.  There is some provocation or other targeting the Prophet Muhammad initiated by a non-Muslim group or institution. Predictably, Muslims react.  In the midst of demonstrations and rallies, an act of violence occurs perpetrated by an offended Muslim and/or his co-religionists. The violent act leads to further demonization of Muslims in the media which by this time is in a frenzy.  Feeling targeted, some Muslim groups escalate their emotional response, sometimes causing more deaths to occur of both Muslims and non-Muslims even in countries far away from the place where the provocation first occurred. One also hears of calls to boycott goods produced in the country where it all started.

On this occasion too it was French president Emmanuel Macron’s vigorous assertion that cartoons of the Prophet produced by the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, in January 2015 and republished since  represented freedom of speech that angered a lot of Muslims in France and elsewhere, though some other remarks he had made recently about ‘Islam being in crisis’ and ‘Islamic separatism’ had also annoyed some people. However, it was the beheading of a French schoolteacher who had shown the cartoons in a class discussion on freedom of speech by a Muslim youth of Chechen origin that provoked not only Macron but also other leaders and a huge segment of French society to react with hostility towards Muslims and even Islam. It should be emphasised that almost all major Muslim leaders and organisations in France also condemned the beheading.  So did many Muslims in other parts of the world.

It is not enough just to denounce an ugly, insane murder of this sort. Not many Muslim theologians have argued publicly that resorting to mindless violence to express one’s anger over a caricature of the Prophet is an affront to the blessed memory of God’s Messenger. For even when he was physically abused in both Mecca and Medina, Prophet Muhammad did not retaliate with violence against his adversaries. He continued with his mission of preaching justice and mercy with kindness and dignity. It is such an attitude that should be nurtured and nourished in the Muslim world today especially by those who command religious authority and political influence among the masses.

Why Is Islam the Fastest Growing Religion of the Modern Era?

If a change in approach is necessary among some Muslims, French society as a whole should also re-appraise its understanding of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should never ever glorify the freedom to insult, to mock, to humiliate another person or community or civilisation. Respect for the feelings and sentiments of the religious other should be integral to one’s belief system, whether it is secular or not. Just because the French State and much of French society have marginalised religion, it does not follow that it should also show utter contempt for a Muslim’s love and reverence for his/her Prophet especially when 6 million French citizens profess the Islamic faith.

Indeed, respecting and understanding the sentiments and values that constitute faith and belief has become crucial in a globalised world where at least 80 % of its inhabitants are linked in one way or another to some religion or other.  We cannot claim to be champions of democracy and yet ignore, or worse, denigrate what is precious to the majority of the human family. This does not mean that we should slavishly accept mass attitudes towards a particular faith. Reforms should continue to be pursued within each religious tradition but it should not undermine respect for the foundations of that faith.

French leaders and elites who regard freedom of speech or expression as the defining attribute of their national identity, should also concede that there have been a lot of inconsistencies in their stances.  A French comedian, Dieudenne, has been convicted in Court eight times for allegedly upsetting “Jewish sentiment” and is prohibited from performing in many venues. A cartoonist with Charlie Hebdo was fired for alleged “ anti-Semitism.”  There is also the case of a writer, Robert Faurisson in the sixties who was fined in Court and lost his job for questioning the conventional holocaust narrative. Many years later, the French intellectual Roger Garaudy was also convicted for attempting to re-interpret certain aspects  of the holocaust.

The hypocrisy of the French State goes beyond convictions in Court. While officials are rightfully aghast at the violence committed by individuals, France has a long history of perpetrating brutal massacres and genocides against Muslims and others. The millions of Algerians, Tunisians and Moroccans who died in the course of the French colonisation of these countries bear tragic testimony to this truth. Vietnam and the rest of Indo-China reinforce this cruel and callous record.  Even in contemporary times, the French State has had no qualms about embarking upon military operations from Afghanistan and Cote d’ Ivore  to Libya and North  Mali  which serve its own interests of dominance and control rather than the needs of the people in these lands.

Honest reflections upon its own misdeeds past and present are what we expect of the French state and society in 2020. There is no need to pontificate to others. This is what we would like to see all colonial powers of yesteryear do —- partly because neo-colonialism is very much alive today.

*

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

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, Global Research, 2020

Terrorism and French Values

By Kim Petersen

Source

Sowing and Reaping?
Emmanuel Macron Meets Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ad79f

There have been some horrendous, despicable killings by Muslim extremists in France. Such killings must be condemned.

French president Emmanuel Macron played the victim card, saying that France “will not give into terrorism.” Yet when 21st century France engages in overseas militarism, otherwise known as state terrorism, in places with large Muslim populations – places that never attacked France — such as Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Chad, Somalia, Libya, North Mali, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen then what is to be expected? Is it okay for France to engage in militarism abroad and expect no blowback on French soil? Must not the French terrorism be condemned?

The embattled, unpopular French president has seized upon the gruesome killings to denounce terrorism and championed “French values,” such as freedom of speech. [1]

Once again the controversial publication Charlie Hebdo has provoked a lethal response.

But the French, especially its politicians, are hypocrites. If free speech allows one to impugn one religion, then then that right to impugn must be allowed for all religions. Take the case of French comedian Dieudonné. He has been convicted in court eight times for upsetting Jewish sentiment and has consequently been embargoed by many venues where he would normally ply his trade.

Many years earlier, professor Robert Faurisson, an extreme skeptic of the typical Holocaust narrative, was hit wth by judicial proceedings, was fined, and lost his job. Is this respect for free speech? Professor Noam Chomsky experienced blowback for supporting free speech in the case of Faurisson. Chomsky held, “… it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense.” [2]

As for France defending freedoms, The Times of Britain notes,

French authorities have been accused of “judicial harassment” in a damning Amnesty report that claims more than 40,000 people were convicted during the gilet jaune (yellow vest) and pension reform protests in 2018 and 2019 “on the basis of vague laws” aimed at restricting their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.

The controversial media outlet Charlie Hebdo is not about either free expression or speech. It fired a cartoonist for alleged anti-Semitism. [3] On its face, Charlie Hebdo signals that Islamophobia is kosher, but Judeophobia is haram.

Macron said “France is under attack.” [4] Were Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Chad, Somalia, Libya, North Mali, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen not under attack when the French sent their guns to these countries? [5]

ENDNOTES

  1. Agence France-Presse,“‘Nous ne cèderons rien’ sur les valeurs françaises, assure Macron” TVA Nouvelles, 29 October 2020.
  2. Noam Chomsky, “Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression,” Appeared as a Preface to Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en défense, 11 October 1980.
  3. See “‘Charlie Hebdo’ condamné pour le licenciement abusif du dessinateur Siné,” Le Monde, 10 December 2009.
  4. “Attentat de Nice – ‘La France est attaquée’, 7 000 militaires déployés, les églises et les écoles sous surveillance : ce qu’il faut retenir des annonces d’Emmanuel Macron” L’Indépendant, 29 October 2020.
  5. Note some of these 21st century conflicts are still ongoing.

*(Top image: French President Emmanuel Macron meets Prime Minister 

Weekly China Newsbrief and Sitrep

Weekly China Newsbrief and Sitrep

September 16, 2020

By Godfree Roberts selected from his extensive weekly newsletter : Here Comes China

This week’s selection includes a separate explanation on just how the Chinese Communist Party and Government operates.  For those that visit these weekly Sitreps to learn, this may put an end to the regular discussion items of just how bad the CCP is.  You did know that China has six political parties, did you?  The people that I’ve consulted say the following:  China’s system works for China.  We do not suggest you adopt our system, so, there is no reason for you to insist we adopt yours.

From a regular Twitter Feed by ShangaiPanda, here is how it actually works, by meritocracy.  What this means is that Xi Jinping for example already had 40 years experience in governing, before he was both selected, and elected to his position.

From Godfree’s newsletter which is just brimming with interesting items this week, we’ve selected items about:

  • space,
  • Islam, communism and the BRI,
  • trade war and trade deficit,
  • and a highly educational piece by ‘Chairman Rabbit’, who analyses America from a Chinese perspective.

On studying China it is good to remember that unlike many other countries, China as a country holds together from two perspectives, a long lasting civilizational unity, as well as a sovereign state.


 Space – high technology that is green technology

China has safely landed a reusable spacecraft which it claims will provide a “convenient and inexpensive” method of getting to and from space. The craft launched on September 4th and landed on September 6th after spending two days in orbit, according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency. Very little is known about the spacecraft, including even its basic design. There are no picture or renders of the craft, but there have been rumors it is a spaceplane similar to the Air Force’s X-37B. A Chinese military source told the South China Morning Post they could not provide details on the mission but that “maybe you can take a look at the US X-37B.”[MORE]

Islam, Communism and the BRI

The significance of having 52 Muslim countries (37.6%) that comprise 87.5 per cent of World Muslims in the BRI alliance, is not lost on the United States and its allies who are not particularly pro-Islam, which may explain their sudden interest to ‘care’ about the plight of Muslims in Xinjiang! Soon after the Bolshevik uprisings, Communism and Islam seemed destined to liberate the Muslim world from European Imperialism, but that was not to be due to their ideological differences. This presented an opportunity to the United States and its allies, where they coopted anti-Communist Jihadism to disrupt Communism.  This had the unintended consequence of being the impetus for China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which presented the U.S. and its allies with new challenges.

Soon after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, Communism and Islam were the impetus for revolutions against European imperialism in Egypt, Iraq, India, Caucasus and Central Asia, and the Indonesian Archipelago. However, divergent views about Communism proved divisive among Muslims (who are also quite divergent in their theological interpretations of Islam) and this quasi- ideological alliance was all over by the onset of the Cold War.  Those irrevocable divisions may have been due to the essence of Islam’s socio-economic and political system.  It is more consultative (‘Shoura’ or democratic theocracy) and entrepreneurial in nature, which is more compatible with social democracy and capitalism, than with communism’s autocratic state planned economy.

The other reason for such failure is the proactive role of the United States (and some Western Europeans, like Britain and France) in using Christian missionaries and NGOs in intelligence gathering while spreading Christianity in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America. In the 1970s, it was revealed that the CIA sponsored missionaries in Kerala and Nagaland to not only block the advance of Communism in India, but also to establish sufficient tensions between India and China and prevent any regional stability that continues to our present day.

In the 1980s, the CIA’s material support to the Afghan Mujahideen (and by default the Afghan Arabs, like Osama Bin Laden and his followers, who were rounded up from the different Arab and Muslim countries by their intelligence services and sent to Afghanistan, via Pakistan for their paramilitary training by the ISI, in the hope that they would never come back) only exacerbated extremist violence ever since. In the 1990s, the predominantly Muslim former Soviet Republics of Central Asia; Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and other Islamic countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan opened their doors to Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi Islam (probably with the ‘blessings’ of the CIA).

This resulted in an upsurge of Islamist fundamentalism and separatist movements in central Asia, like al-Qaeda affiliated Turkestan Islamic Party(TIP), Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT) and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI), which have presented a challenge to China and others in the region. Since the rise of anti-Communist Jihadism in the 1980s and its coopetition by the Anglo-Americans to disrupting Communism ever since may have been the impetus for China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The $8 trillion investment by China in its bold, innovative and strategic Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) alliances with 138 countries comprising 51.7% of world GDP offers an infrastructure backbone of maritime, land and digital trade alliances. The BRI alliances represent 4.8 billion people (61.7%) of the world population.  Of which an estimated 1.4 billion (29.2%) identify as Muslim and are part of the 52 member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), including all 22 Arab countries.

China’s BRI strategic alliances with Arabic and Muslim countries can only help neutralise the existential threat of global Islamist fundamentalism in the long-term by spreading economic prosperity and alleviating poverty. Also, it will not only bring prosperity and stability to China’s underdeveloped north-western part (Xinjiang holds 1.33% of China’s population and contributes 1.35% to China’s GDP), but also to (its ideological partner in the new world order) Russia, and other BRI partners on its western border.

Coupled with technological innovations in global cross-border trade and finance, the BRI projects would no doubt accelerate global economic growth and revive China’s historical legacy in boosting entrepreneurships without compromising necessary protections of the weak. Those infrastructure-driven alliances are building a global community with a shared future for mankind.  This is so important at a time when our world is divided by poverty, crippling national debts and the rise of ultra-nationalism.

The clash of civilizations, anti-(Muslim)-refugees’ sentiment and Islamophobia are just symptoms of the rise in white supremacism and alt-right extremism sweeping the Anglo-American and European nations. Those groups subscribe to a conspiracy theory of cultural and population replacement or nativism, where white European populations are being replaced with non-Europeans (predominantly Muslim Arabs from Syria and elsewhere) due to the complicity of ‘replacist’ elites.

For example, the ‘Génération Identitaire’ (GI) movement in France, which considers itself a ‘defender’ of the European civilization has affiliated youth groups in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.  This heightened sense of ultra-nationalism is driving Western democratic politics away from economic concerns, in favour of issues related to culture and identity. No doubt, Anglo-American and European anxieties about China’s technological, economic and geopolitical dominance may be rooted in their innate fears about being displaced by an Asian culture and the potential spread of Socialism with Chinese characteristics to the 138 countries that joined the BRI alliances, after having spent a good part of over 70 years fighting Communism.

America’s continued rise as a world power—from the 1890s through the Cold War—and its bid to extend its hegemony deep into the twenty-first century through a fusion of cyberwar, space warfare, trade pacts, and military alliances – is now limited by the reality that it has to dismantle China’s BRI alliances as it did to the USSR. This is why the ‘five eyes’ alliance is going on the offensive with (a) sanctions and visa restrictions for Chinese officials, (b) bans on China’s technological 5G innovations (Huawei, Tik Tok and WeChat under the guise of ‘National Security’ concerns), (c) tariffs trade wars, and (d) a particular focus on ‘human rights’ in Hong Kong and Xinjiang.

The significance of having 52 Muslim countries (37.6%) that comprise 87.5 per cent of World Muslims in the BRI alliance, is not lost on the United States and its allies who are not particularly pro-Islam, which may explain their sudden interest to ‘care’ about the plight of Muslims in Xinjiang! Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the sole purpose of those disruptive policies by the “five-eyes” alliance is to intensify the global anti-China sentiment that is already aggravated due to COVID-19, and to inflame Muslim sentiment in particular, so as to torpedo China’s largest economic and geopolitical Belt and Road alliances.[MORE] [George Mickhail is an LSE trained academic and a geopolitical risk analyst with 30 years’ experience in major global accounting firms and business schools.]

Trade War and Trade Deficit

The US trade deficit with China widened in July – an embarrassing situation for President Trump, who Taiwan’s Liberty Times said had been left  with a ‘green face’ (a crude expression that makes plain this is a bad outcome for him). When the US President campaigned four years ago, he strongly accused China of seizing American wealth in what he hailed as “the biggest theft in history.” After his election, he maintained this position against China. However, the latest data will hardly please him. The United States had a $31.6 billion trade deficit with China in July, which was an 11.5% increase from June. The paper noted that before the outbreak of the coronavirus, the US trade deficit with China was narrowing, but it has gradually expanded since the epidemic spread. Data released by the US Census Bureau on Thursday showed that the trade deficit with China in Q2 increased by 36.8% compared to Q1. The deficit in July was 4.36% larger than that in July 2016.[MORE]

‘Chairman Rabbit’ Analyzes America

Editor’s Note: Tu Zhuxi (Chairman Rabbit) is the nom de plume of Ren Yi, a Harvard-educated Chinese blogger who has amassed more than 1.6 million followers on Weibo who seek out his political commentary, much of which falls under a genre we might facetiously call “America-watching.” 

Today, I scrolled through the interview Professor Ezra Feivel Vogel gave with the Global Times: “90 year-old Professor Vogel: Unfortunately, there is a possibility of armed confrontation between the United States and China.” The veteran professor—who has researched China and East Asia all his life and promoted the development of ties between the United States and China—conveyed intense unease after witnessing two years of sharp downturn in Sino-U.S. relations under the Trump Administration. He could not bear not to air his concerns. 

This interview comes at an opportune time. As you can see, I have excerpted a short comment from the interview. This excerpt perfectly echoes the content I have wanted to expand on these last two days:

Vogel: There is a new article in the Atlantic magazine by James Fallows that gives the most comprehensive explanation of what has happened. And it clearly is the Trump administration.

Before the coronavirus, there had been plans in earlier administrations for dealing with an epidemic. We had a good overall plan. Trump did not use those plans at all. He even acted when he first heard about the coronavirus pandemic as if there was not a big problem. So things were delayed. It clearly is Trump’s responsibility.

At the time of writing, the United States has around 3.8 million confirmed cumulative cases, 140,000 deaths, and a daily increase of about 64 thousand cases. The diagnosis of experts and intellectuals around the United States: this is all due to the Trump Administration.

First of all, the United States’ so-called “good overall plan” for epidemic response was targeted towards a type of infectious disease that resembles the flu in infectiousness, hazard, and lethality. The United States after all has quite a few documentaries and special television programming about pandemics, and every year in every corner of the country drills are held about pandemics, but all of these were with the assumptions of a flu-like disease. COVID-19 was not within the expectations of an American plan for epidemic response, and indeed was beyond the response plan of every country in regard to an infectious disease with respiratory transmission. COVID-19 is an especially potent epidemic, a disease with an extraordinarily high death rate. The epidemic response plan that the United States currently had in place was entirely insufficient for COVID-19. Dr. Anthony Fauci brought up this topic several times in the last few months, especially in the early stages of the epidemic: the American system and design is either insufficient or entirely ineffectual against COVID-19. Dr. Fauci was speaking only from the standpoint of public hygiene and healthcare system and his analysis did not broaden past these considerations.

I have been following the news, media, and commentaries of the U.S. right and left. Criticisms of the epidemic response have generally been from Democratic Party, anti-Trump, and/or liberal-aligned intellectuals. Even after several months, I have rarely encountered essays or discussions that analyze in-depth the full extent of the difficulties facing the U.S. COVID-19 response by synthesizing broader observations on the nation’s political system, society, governance, culture, and economy.

Basically, all the analyses have taken the question and subsumed it under the issue of “political leadership”—usually pointing towards the President, the White House, and state governors. The majority of these analyses lay blame onto the very person of Trump.

Basically, all the analyses have taken the question and subsumed it under the issue of “political leadership”—usually pointing towards the President, the White House, and state governors. The majority of these analyses lay blame onto the very person of Trump.

According to this logic, the reason for the U.S.’s weak response to the epidemic is Trump and Trump alone. If only there was only another person in charge, the U.S. could have defeated COVID-19.

Readers who follow me should know my methods well: I have always begun my analyses from a sociological point of view. How could the U.S. use influenza as the primary lens to understand COVID-19, and how did this understanding influence the U.S.’s subsequent responsive actions? I have since wrote many essays on this topic, for example my April 1st, 2020 essay: “Can the United States Shut Down Entire Cities and Thoroughly Practice Social Distancing Like China? A Discussion of American Exceptionalism” (link in Chinese).

In that piece, I argue that due to the U.S. political and legal system, enacting a comprehensive and stringent social distancing program, including measures such as quarantining cities, is simply not possible.

In the next few months, I will continue my analysis and extend towards the political level. Not too long ago, I collected a few writings into this listicle: “13 Reasons for the Ineffectual Response towards COVID-19 of the United States and ‘Society Construction’ During an Epidemic” (link in Chinese).

I summarized thirteen reasons for the U.S.’s weak response to the epidemic:

  1. Government system: the separation of powers between the federal, state, and local governments
  2. Government system: the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judiciary bodies
  3. Wide racial and class disparities
  4. A culture that understands individualism as a cardinal virtue, even to the point of opposing social or collective interests
  5. An overwhelmingly one-sided emphasis on political and civil rights
  6. “Gun culture”: the spirit of Manifest Destiny, rugged individualism, and militarism
  7. “Bible culture” and anti-intellectualism
  8. A pluralistic society without common understanding or consensuses
  9. A government and media that intensifies rather than ameliorates social tensions
  10. A values system that does not respect the elderly and does not assign elders special protections
  11. Family structures which are not suited to fighting against COVID-19
  12. The precarious economic situation of the United States’ middle and lower classes (like walking on a tightrope, i.e. living from paycheck to paycheck or credit problems)
  13. Other cultural factors, such as resistance against wearing masks

There are certainly many more reasons than the ones I have listed. But what I wish to express is that the U.S.’s weak response to the epidemic is the combined result of political, legal, social, cultural, economic, and other factors. The White House, as one of the holders of broad public authority (the executive section of the federal government), has in fact significantly limited power over this broader structural context.

The U.S. cannot manage stringent social distancing, large-scale quarantines of cities, nor restrictions on interstate travel. Health QR codes on mobile devices are entirely impossible with citizens’ insistence on privacy protections. A vast society led primarily by individualism and anti-intellectualism can hardly speak of epidemic management. These factors are not problems that can be resolved with the changing of a president. I believe that even if it were Obama, Hillary, or Biden as president, they would not be able to reverse the tide of the battle against COVID-19, even if they would be slightly more effective—for instance if they had taken the initiative and emphasized the importance of masks. This is because fighting an epidemic does not depend on the lobbying or practices of a president, but rather on the public health and prevention system of an entire country, one which from top to bottom must act in unity and move together. Public authority must comprehensively, effectively, and consistently implement policies (such that each locality will not have its own variant policies), and also cannot allow any level of the judiciary to interfere in the problems of any level of government. On the balance between citizen and society, preparations must absolutely be made to cede rights to the collective. “Political and civil rights” must in these times yield way.

The very design of U.S. political and legal institutions is meant to inhibit collective rights. Balance of powers is at the core of American governance. Political and civil rights are the bedrock of American political values. To deny these values equates to the very denial of the U.S.’s fundamental being.

The very design of U.S. political and legal institutions is meant to inhibit collective rights.

Therefore, to take the U.S.’s weak response to the epidemic and shove it at “political leadership” and at the feet of Trump is not merely skin-deep, but avoids the real problem and focuses on easy answers. It is simply not looking at the substance of the situation.

For several months I have followed U.S. political commentaries on the left and right, and I can confirm I have not seen any analysis of depth. The overwhelming majority of analyses are overly narrow and concrete, pointing at an individual perhaps. Rare is the person who can leap outside the U.S. political structure and carry out a detailed assessment from a third point-of-view. Why? I summarize two reasons:

(1) Americans are sort of like the baffled participant in a game; sometimes the onlookers see more of the game than the players. Americans honestly believe that the American system is exceptional, the best in the world. This is an earnest and steadfast faith, an authentic “self-confidence in path, self-confidence in principles, self-confidence in system, self-confidence in culture” [the “Four Self-Confidences” of Xi Jinping Thought]. They simply cannot bring themselves to doubt or oppose the American system. Since the American system is perfect, once the epidemic creates problems, by the process of elimination, Americans reason that the problem must stem only from electing the right or wrong politician. From this line of thought, pick out the one who has the most power: this is Trump’s fault. After him, perhaps we blame the governor of Florida, DeSantis. This is about as deep as the majority of Americans introspect.

(2) Criticizing the American system is a serious political error. It’s taboo. This is because it is anti-American, “unpatriotic,” “un-American.” It is a stance that doubts the very foundations of the United States. So when there is an elephant in the room in regards to the American system, everybody can see it but dare not speak up. I believe that the majority of people do not even see this elephant in the room because they have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the perfection of the American system. It is only a minority of people who can see this. These people very well could be Democrats or liberal intellectuals. This small number of people aware of reality cannot point out the elephant, however, even if they can see it. This is because pointing it out cannot change the situation on the ground, yet will still result in censure and criticism. One would rather polish a cannonball and lob it at Trump.

In summary, if we compare China with the United States, we would discover an interesting phenomenon.

When Chinese people criticize, they are accustomed to focusing criticisms on the system. “Systemic problem.” “Systemic-ism .” Even though there are indeed problems at the individual level, these problems are thoroughly rooted in the larger system. “Because the system produced this type of person,” “because the system could not restrain or check this particular person.” At any rate, any analysis fundamentally leads back to systemic problems.

When American people criticize, it is focusing the problem onto the physical body of an individual politician. It is not the system at fault, because the system is already perfect or close to perfect, so it can only be a problem birthed from the politician: this pundit’s personality is bad, their abilities did not cut it. All criticisms are of this sort. With that, if an impotent pundit is continuously elected or re-elected—for instance if Trump is re-elected, then this is a problem of the voters. But at this time, the analysis simply cannot proceed further. In the calculus of American political values, the political values of every person are equal: one cannot belittle the voters. In 2016 during the presidential race, Hillary Clinton belittled Trump’s supporters and faced an overwhelmingly negative backlash, costing her the ultimate price (this could perhaps be why she lost the presidential race). What is left then is to criticize the political influence of the media, campaign funding, and interest groups. But even here the analysis must end. Within the proscribed limits of the dialogue, it is easy to enter into another level of analysis—for example, could it be that the U.S. electoral system has fundamental faults? If one gets to this level, it touches upon the very body of U.S. democracy and its electoral system. One would be entering a live mine zone, teetering on the edge of political error.

In this sort of environment, Americans naturally will avoid hard problems and search for easy answers. They will not explore systemic problems, but rather focus their entire attention on electoral solutions.

Under this existing electoral process, one can only, perhaps, push their preferred candidate onto the political stage and wish only for their own candidate to ascend to the office, so that in the next few years that candidate can advance their own political programs and thereby protect the interests of the candidate’s supporters. In this sort of environment, Americans naturally will avoid hard problems and search for easy answers. They will not explore systemic problems, but rather focus their entire attention on electoral solutions.

Therefore, American politics are entirely driven by the short-term. They will look at long-term problems as a certainty before avoiding them, exerting only in order to resolve short-term problems. Even though there are scholars and intellectuals who can produce long-term analyses of wide historical and societal scale, this sort of analysis remains locked in the library and Ivory Towers, away from the stain of political practice.

The American “Revolution”

In the week after the conclusion of the 2016 election in the United States, Democratic primary candidate Bernie Sanders published his book Our Revolution. As everybody knows, 2016 was the contest between Trump and Clinton. Yet Bernie Sanders was the more extreme, more left (called a “socialist”) candidate of the Democratic Party, who was ultimately knocked out by the mainstream Clinton in the primaries. But he retains many fans among the Democratic Party’s “progressive wing”, including many youth. In his book, he introduced his thoughts as well as his explanations and analyses on all sorts of issues of the day, including the wealth gap, race relations, environmental problems, healthcare problems, the problem of media and interest groups binding politics, gender pay disparity, and the problem of Wall Street and big corporations.

Sanders’ diagnosis of American problems intersects with Trump: it is only that while Sander’s target audience was quite broad (for example, minorities, vulnerable groups, and women), Trump’s was much more parochial. On similar problems, Trump would provide right-wing resolutions to his limited audience of voters, but Sanders provided left-wing resolutions to his broad audiences—because of this, he was smeared as a “socialist”. Of course, during Sander’s entire campaign, there remained an unspeakable doubt: that is, can a big-city Jewish American ‘elite’ from Brooklyn, New York actually win the votes to be elected as President of the United States? This same problem may apply to Michael Bloomberg. To date, it seems this question answers in the negative.

But I do not wish to talk about Sanders’ propositions or ethnicity, but rather his slogan: “Our Revolution”.

“Our Revolution” has now become a left-wing action organization with roots in the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign, and it continues to organize movements within the Democratic Party and in other broader social contexts.

“Our Revolution” has three key actions: “Win on our issues,” “Transform the Democratic Party,” and “Elect progressives up and down the ballot.”

It is of note that Sanders is the most mainstream American politician to date to support the idea of a revolution. However, what I wish to point out to Chinese readers is that this concept of “revolution” is nothing more than propagating his own thoughts and policy proposals to a wider audience, in order to get his own people elected and achieve electoral success himself.

People more familiar with Chinese political discourse should know the difference between “revolution” and “reform.”

Revolution is overturning and starting over again: toppling the old system and the old order, and constructing a new system. Revolution is often violent, of great force, compelled, and refuses to abide by the present system. From the standpoint of Marxism, revolution is class struggle, a fiery worker’s movement. From the standpoint of Leninism, it is a violent movement. From the standpoint of Mao Zedong:

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

In the Chinese context, and indeed in the majority of cultural and social contexts, “revolution” is an intense action: revolution demands the overthrowing of the present system. Abiding by the present system, or moving within the current system and order, can only be reform.

But it is different in the United States. In the United States, challenging and overthrowing the system is taboo. It is simply impossible. This is because the American system is considered sacred, perfect. It is only particular individuals who have problems, only particular problems that cannot be handled well. The system itself has no problems. Therefore, all actions can only be carried out within the purview of what the system allows. The only path is by election—use a successful election to construct the starting point and foundations of societal change.

The American system is considered sacred, perfect. It is only particular individuals who have problems, only particular problems that cannot be handled well. The system itself has no problems.

Because of this, in the political rhetoric of Bernie Sanders, we see not a radical revolution or transformation, but a complete obedience to the American system. Due to the American people’s 100% approval and obedience to the system, any possibilities that people may have substantive critique or doubts vis-à-vis the system are cut off, and no action can be taken. The American system has completely limited their space for movement. Even “radicals” similarly can only raise high the banner of the American system, and can only work and influence society within designated limits: by pushing their own candidates in elections.

A few weeks ago, the police brutality case of George Floyd caused massive numbers of Americans to take to the streets and protest without ceasing.

Yet have we seen any protestor put out protest against the very structure of America’s political system, institutions, and government? Will there be any person who comes and burn the Constitution? Burn the American flag? Will there be any person who will put forth concrete plans of actions towards subversion?

There wasn’t any. The protestors could only protest a few “conditions.” Each path towards resolution is diverted back into elections.

The United States uses the separation of powers mechanism to spread the vast majority of social contradictions among the politicians of the various local jurisdictions. Through the possibility of election, in order to resolve these contradictions, the people complain while pointing at the politicians, not the institutions themselves. In the end, the people believe they hold the power and can influence politics through the vote, carrying on their lives under this sort of hope.

The most awe-inspiring politics indeed is this: one in which people believe they have the power and thus maintain steadfast hope in the future, while at the same time changing nothing about the current situation.

A few weeks ago, when riots erupted all around the United States, Secretary of State Pompeo could still proudly boast and simultaneously demean China: Wehave freedom of assembly, expression, and freedom to protest.

The American system has already developed to this point: simply give the people freedom of expression and freedom to protest so that they can feel themselves righteous and superior, after which they may do as they wish.

I have before written an essay “From ‘Moral Licensing’ and ‘black-clad warriors’ to the ‘Sick People of Hong Kong’” in which I explained the concept of moral licensing:

“People believe that if they had prior done something good, they can then possibly condone themselves (or even indulge themselves) when in the future they do something not as good (even actions that do not conform to one’s own or the public’s moral standards).”

The circumstances surrounding the system of the U.S. are such: if we allow people expression, allow them to freely scold the government, this grants the people “political and civil rights.” This itself grants the American system moral superiority; it is the ends not the means. Afterwards, the government need not do anything further: “half-heartedly listen yet decide to do nothing.” That there have been so many racial conflicts and riots in the past few decades demonstrates that this kind of “expression” does not bring any substantive political transformation. American society has not experienced any fundamental changes. The people who can bear it no more cannot help but take to the streets after many a hard years.

The U.S.’s electoral system is a systemic, national form of “moral licensing”:

First, it grants people the right to vote, grants people a few nominal political and civil rights, allowing the people to feel that they have power and agency and thereby perceive moral self-satisfaction.

Afterwards, the politicians and elites can recount the greatness and glory of the system, right and proper as it is. “We allow African Americans to go out on the streets! So our system is progressive.” “We had Obama as president, how can our society be discriminatory against African Americans?”

The first stage of American politics is taking “the right to express concerns” and equating it with “measures to resolve the problem.” I allowed you to express your opinion, so all is well.

The second stage of American politics is taking “the right to express concerns” and using it as legitimization for “tacit allowance of the bad.” I allowed you to express your opinion, and I even allowed a black president, so what are you babbling about?

As one can see, the separation of powers and electoral system in the United States has created a perfect “cognitive trap” — people believe that this system can endlessly empower individuals and provide limitless potential and possibilities, that it can change anything. This system is in fact like a black hole, taking all the potential and sucking it in and dispelling it — even if it means there will be no changes in reality.

This system is in fact like a black hole, taking all the potential and sucking it in and dispelling it — even if it means there will be no changes in reality.

I believe that there will not be an insurrection in the U.S. because there is no power in the U.S. that can overturn or transform the American system. The American system is too powerful, it can already change the meaning of words: turning “revolution” into reforms hemmed in by the limits of the electoral system. This is indeed an extraordinarily powerful system.

Only an enormous outside pressure can cause the United States to change.

China is just such a pressure currently placed on the United States. In the beginning, the pressure was indistinct, unclear, but now it grows more apparent as China continues its rise.

Why Can’t America Criticize Its Own System?

Apart from “empowering” people, giving them the fantastic illusion of grasping political power and being able to influence it, the American electoral system is also importantly related to the system’s construction of an American person’s identity.

As I have written two days prior in the essay “Why the United States Does Not Understand China — From the Original Intention of the Communist Party of China, to European Civilization, to American Politics”, the United States is an multi-national country, assimilating many people from different ethnicities, nationalities, cultures, and societies. To bind these people together, a country cannot rely on blood ties, shared ethnicity, or shared culture, but instead on shared political values—the approval of the Constitution of the United States, and the approval of the foundational political values of the United States.

Political values and the American system: these two formulate the “national identity” of the United States.

Disavowing the American system is tantamount to disavowing the American national identity, necessarily meaning being anti-American.

Every civilization must construct its own foundations for national identity.

The national identities of European countries lay upon race, blood, and land, and, after, language and culture. Denying one’s race, blood, land, and language is to go against one’s own national character, and is hardly acceptable.

China is also multi-national, its national identity based more on culture and language; one able to integrate into the Chinese nation is one who can be accepted. Land is secondary, and ethnicity and blood ties may also be factors. But in summary, the inclusiveness of the Chinese people is quite potent, with ethnicity, blood ties, and other such factors relatively weak considerations. From the point-of-view of Chinese people, disavowing Chinese culture, history, tradition, or the perception of China’s territory and borders, is what it takes to disavow or be disloyal to China.

From the standpoint of the United States, ethnicity, blood, land, language, culture, and history are not key factors; only political values are. To disavow the American system is to disavow the American “nation.”

From the standpoint of any nationality, for one to deny their own national character is very much unacceptable, no matter if it is Europe, China, or the United States. The distinction from Europe and China is that the American nationality is built on the foundation of a political system and values.

In what circumstances then does a society or a nationality go against and disavow their own nationality?

I am currently of the belief that it is only in a cross-ethnic or transnational international setting where one could find serious frustrations which could produce such a self-disavowal.

Only in facing an enormous failure can there possibly be a self-disavowal, even a “self-hatred”.

China’s concept of nationality is built on culture and civilization. In the past two hundred years or so, China has suffered foreign invasion and bullying, thoroughly fell behind and received thrashings, and as a result came to doubt much of its own system and culture. This type of self-doubt and self-disavowal has persisted onto the present day. Chinese people tend to search for their own “inherent weaknesses” among their traditional culture.

Once the Chinese economy grew, and subsequently once its global standing rose, people began to change, becoming self-confident, and more were able to see the good aspects of Chinese traditional culture and contemporary societal practices.

The U.S. is similar. The American concept of national character is its own system and political value. Nothing short of a severe frustration of the American system, perhaps by China comprehensively catching up to or surpassing the United States, perhaps even failing in a competition or struggle with China, would possibly wake up the Americans to their senses. The basis for the United States’ own “four self-confidences” is its absolute leading role in the world for the past close to a century. The U.S.’s strength made people believe that the American system must be superior, and based on this they came to believe that America’s national character must be superior. The U.S. vigilantly guards against and attacks any other country that could challenge its national might, because any challenge would undermine the supposed superiority of the U.S.’s national character.

The U.S. vigilantly guards against and attacks any other country that could challenge its national might, because any challenge would undermine the supposed superiority of the U.S.’s national character.

If China one day rises and is to enter conflict with the United States and comes to outdo the American system, then for certain it would deal a huge blow to the self-confidence of the American people.

Only in such a time may the American people perhaps engage in deeper introspections on their system and models, and thereby possibly search for and implement necessary reforms.

I believe that American politics and society have extraordinarily powerful inertia and cannot initiate any self-led, self-directed adjustments in the short-term, unless there is outside pressure.

China’s rise is by now inevitable and will come to pressure the U.S. more as time goes on. At a certain point, the U.S. will be forced to confront and rethink their own system, to seek more changes and reforms. This is precisely like the period at the end of the 70s and beginning of the 80s, in which the U.S. confronted the rise of Japan in industrial and commercial matters. Thus, the U.S. increasingly scrutinizing China is only a matter of time.

As China continues to grow stronger, its influence on international affairs will naturally grow larger as well. At the same time, the United States will experience a relative decline, its soft power and political influence around the world will face relative decline as well. China can indeed throw out or act as a challenge, check, or supplement (the terminology is not important) to the American model in the future, and proceed on a path distinct from that of the West.

The path China takes will also influence the course of human development in the future, and indeed may be a course we will get to see in our lifetimes.

Finally, if there is a lesson that China must draw from the U.S. concerning principles of political systems, it must be that we must constantly remember to remain humble. Under no circumstances can we allow ourselves to become complacent and lose our vigilance. We must constantly look at our shortcomings, search for reforms and improvements, and consistently upgrade ourselves. “Four self-confidences” of course is vitally important, but we must at the same time retain our characteristically Chinese low-key, pragmatic, cautious, modest, and moderate dispositions.

We must never emulate the Americans in their blindness, arrogance and self-importance, lack of introspection, or their coarse self-confidence.[MORE]

Translated by Sean Haoqin Kang. The original Wechat blogpost, “American ‘Revolution’: The ‘Systemic Trap’ and the Lessons China Must Draw” can be found here (link in Chinese).


Selections by Amarynth

%d bloggers like this: