سنبقى نراوح مكاننا إذا لم تقم تجربة جديدة لبناء القوس المصري – السوري، كرافعة تاريخية مناهضة بالضرورة للتحالف الإمبريالي – الصهيوني- الرجعي – العثماني.
شكّلت مصر وسوريا، أهم قوس استراتيجي في تاريخ الأمة التي اعتمد نهوضها في كل مرة على هذا القوس وتكامله ضمن خطاب سياسي – اجتماعي متصادم بالضرورة مع موجات الغزو المتتالية، من أوروبا الإقطاعية، مرحلة ما يعرف بالحملات الصليبية، إلى أوروبا الرأسمالية ثم المنظومة الإمبريالية العالمية ومن يتصدّرها في كل حقبة.
إضافة إلى الأدبيات الناصرية وخاصة فلسفة الثورة والميثاق لجمال عبد الناصر، وكتابات نديم البيطار وأنور عبد الملك وعصمت سيف الدولة وسمير أمين وياسين الحافظ، فإن كتابات المفكّر المصري، جمال حمدان، شكّلت ولا تزال الخلفية الاستراتيجية لبناء تصوّرات جيوبولوتيكية تدعم وتؤطر فكرة القوس المصري السوري وأهميته الحيوية لاشتباك تاريخي مع الغزاة وللتأسيس للرافعة الكبرى لنهوض الأمة ووحدتها.
وليس بلا معنى أن محاولات الاقتراب من هذا القوس، اتسمت بملامح وقواسم مشتركة على الصعيدين الإقليمي والدولي، بصرف النظر، أولاً، عن السمات الاجتماعية والطبقية للقوى السياسية النافذة التي تتطلّع إلى دور إقليمي انطلاقاً من هذا القوس، وثانياَ بصرف النظر عن المرحلة التاريخية.
التجربة الأولى.. محمد علي
في العقود الأولى من القرن التاسع عشر، اصطدم حاكم مصر القوي، محمد علي باشا، بقوى محلية وإقليمية ودولية لم ترق لها نهضة مصر وترجمة هذه النهضة بدور محوري، يتكامل مع بلاد الشام من موقع الشوكة والاستقلال في مواجهة الغزاة.
بداية، وبالتقاطع مع مخاوف الباب العالي العثماني من التحالف الوهابي – السعودي (آل السعود وآل الشيخ) اندفعت القوات المصرية إلى الحجاز ثم إلى نجد وخاصة الدرعية وتمكّنت من تصفية الحركة الوهابية، التي كانت قد ارتبطت مع قلم الاستخبارات في شركة الهند الشرقية البريطانية، وفق اعترافات بيركهارت، الذي تحوّل من عالم آثار سويسري إلى مبعوث للمخابرات البريطانية باسم الشيخ عبد الله اللوزاني، وكان من أهم قنوات الاتصال مع الوهابيين وتزويدهم بالمال والبنادق الحديثة.
في مرحلة لاحقة، وبعد أن استشعر محمد علي ضعف الاحتلال العثماني وسلاطينه في إسطنبول، دفع قواته إلى سوريا الطبيعية (سوريا الحالية أو الشام بلغة القوميين السوريين، فلسطين، الأردن ولبنان)، وتمكّنت القوات المصرية بقيادة إبراهيم باشا من سحق الجيوش العثمانية وقتل وأسر عشرات الآلاف منها، ثم الزحف إلى إسطنبول وضرب حصار عليها مقدّمة لإنهاء السلطنة فيها ونقل المركز إلى القاهرة.
خلال هذه السنوات، أطلق المصريون مشروعاً جديداً في المناطق التي حرّروها من الاحتلال العثماني ومن ربقة التحالف السعودي الوهابي، ومن ذلك تحديث الإدارة والجيش وسك العملة، وفرض نمط من الضرائب الحديثة بدل الجباية العثمانية الإقطاعية، وكذلك توسيع البيمارستانات وإقامة العديد من مدارس التجهيز الإعدادية، كما أطلقوا موجة واسعة من التسامح بين المذاهب والطوائف وحوّلوا الأزهر إلى مرجعية فقهية ضمن التوجّه الجديد.
بالطبع وبالتأكيد وبسبب الطبيعة الطبقية للحكم الجديد ونزعاته الرأسمالية المبكرة بالتعاون مع الفرنسيين، ترافقت هذه الإدارة مع أساليب وسياسات استخدمت من قبل خصوم محمد علي للتحريض عليه.
في المقابل، أثارت استراتيجية القوس المصري – السوري أحقاد ومخاوف الاستعمار البريطاني إضافة إلى الباب العالي العثماني، وكذلك قوى عديدة عشائرية وطائفية منها الحركة الوهابية، فتجمّعت كل هذه القوى حول البعثات البريطانية ومعظمها من الجواسيس وشكّلت (جبهة) واسعة ضد المصريين، ومن ذلك:
– تحريض تجار الشام وبيروت والقبائل في فلسطين وشرق الأردن ضد محمد علي وشن حملة واسعة في الصحافة البريطانية نفسها، ويشار هنا إلى حصار إبراهيم باشا، قائد الجيوش المصرية لقلعة الكرك في شرق الأردن، بعد أن هرب إليها عدد من قادة التمرد في جبال نابلس المدعومين من المخابرات البريطانية، ومن المؤسف أن هناك من اعتبر التحالف بين قادة التمرد في نابلس والكرك ضد توحيد مصر وسوريا جزءاً من التاريخ الوطني.
– بيد أن الأخطر من كل ذلك هو مؤتمر لندن الذي عقد بدعم ورعاية عائلة روتشيلد اليهودية وبالتنسيق مع رئيس وزراء الإمبريالية البريطانية آنذاك، وهو دزرائيلي (من أصول يهودية). وقد شارك في المؤتمر إضافة إلى ممثلي الحكومة البريطانية وروتشيلد نفسه، ممثلون عن إمبراطورية النمسا – المجر، وروسيا القيصرية، وقرّروا حشد قوة بحرية وبرية لإجبار محمد علي على فك الحصار عن إسطنبول والانسحاب من سوريا. وعندما أدرك محمد علي صعوبة هذا الموقف بعد تخلّي فرنسا عنه، انصاع لمطالب مؤتمر لندن.
التجربة الثانية.. عبد الناصر
بعد أقل من قرن على تجربة الوحدة المصرية السورية الأولى، تشكّلت ظروف شبيهة إلى حد ما من حيث، ظهور زعيم قوي بكاريزما تاريخية هو جمال عبد الناصر، ومن حيث الدور البريطاني ومعه القوة الإمبريالية الجديدة ممثلة بالولايات المتحدة، ومن حيث الدور التركي، وكذلك دور الوهابية وجماعات التجار وأوساط من القبائل وتجار الدين.
بعد سنوات قليلة من ثورة تموز/يوليو 1952 في مصر، وجدت الثورة نفسها بقيادة جمال عبد الناصر في مواجهة تحديات داخلية وخارجية متشابكة: الكيان الصهيوني، رواسب الإقطاع، وشركة قناة السويس البريطانية وأصابعها من البرجوازية الطفيلية وبقايا حكم الملكية الفاسدة وجماعات حسن البنا مؤسس الإخوان المسلمين والإسلام السياسي المموّل من هذه الشركة.
فكان تأميم قناة السويس في الداخل والتصدي لحلف بغداد في الخارج (الحلف هو الذراع العسكري الجنوبي لحلف الأطلسي ومركزه الإقليمي، التركي – العراقي)، كما أدركت الثورة الناصرية مبكراً أن المعركة في بر مصر شديدة الصلة بالمعركة في بر سوريا والأمة عموماً، بل أن المتروبولات الإمبريالية وخاصة لندن وواشنطن سرعان ما راحت تطوّق الثورة المصرية من خلال محاولات الاستحواذ على الشرق العربي وخاصة سوريا.
وعندما فشلت في جر دمشق إلى حلف أنقرة – بغداد، دفعت القوات التركية إلى احتلال شمال سوريا 1957 وشق الجيش السوري (الفتي) بمجموعات منشقة تحت عنوان (الجيش الحر) مرتبطة بحكومة انتقالية تديرها بريطانيا والولايات المتحدة من تركيا (النسخة الأصلية لما شهدته سوريا في العشرية السوداء)، وقد شارك في حكومة الائتلاف العميلة آنذاك بقايا الرواسب الإقطاعية والبرجوازيات الطفيلية وأوساط ليبرالية وجماعة الإخوان المسلمين والإرهاصات الأولى للوهابية خارج حدود السعودية وقطر.
في هذه اللحظة التاريخية، أصرت القوى الوطنية السورية بكل تياراتها على إقامة وحدة كاملة مع مصر برئاسة جمال عبد الناصر، ومع أن مصر لم تكن مستعدة تماماً لهذه التجربة، فقد تجاوبت معها بسرعة.
وكما في مشهد القرن التاسع عشر، وجدت الوحدة المصرية السورية الجديدة (1958 – 1961) نفسها أمام قوى وأساليب وأدوات وتحالفات وسياسات تشبه سابقتها: بريطانيا من جديد ومعها الولايات المتحدة، تركيا المحمولة من الغرب الرأسمالي الاستعماري، والوهابية بثوبها الجديد، إضافة إلى رشوة وتحريض واسعين في أوساط قبلية وطائفية تحت العنوان نفسه (التخلص من الاستعمار المصري).
أيضاً، إذا كانت اليهودية العالمية قد تحرّكت ضد محمد علي من خلال روتشيلد وبيوتاته المالية في القرن التاسع عشر، فقد عادت في التجربة الجديدة من خلال الروتشيلدية الجديدة وأداتها الكولونيالية الاستياطنية باسم الكيان الإسرائيلي، بل إن هذا الكيان وبتوصية روتشيلد من خلال ما عرف بصندوق اكتشاف فلسطين لتمويل الاستيطان اليهودي، هو الذي نصح بريطانيا والغرب بإقامة “بافر ستيت” يهودي في فلسطين بعد احتلالها، يفصل مصر عن سوريا الطبيعية ولا يسمح بتكرار تجربة محمد علي.
ومن المؤسف أن مصير الوحدة الجديدة لم يكن أفضل من سابقتها بعد الانفصال الذي شاركت فيه قوى متعددة، ولم تشكّل أخطاء الوحدة مبرّراً حقيقياً للانفصال الذي يعود في حقيقته إلى التآمر الخارجي ودور المخابرات البريطانية والأميركية وأعوانهما السياسيين وقوى البرجوازية التي تضرّرت من قوانين التأميم والإصلاح الزراعي. ومن المؤسف كذلك أن مواقف قوى محسوبة على الحركة الوطنية قدّمت غطاء لهذا الانفصال، إضافة إلى رفض جمال عبد الناصر الدفاع عن الوحدة بالقوة، متجاهلاً أنه ما من وحدة قومية في التاريخ قامت بطريقة سلمية ومن دون شلال من الدم.
وما زلنا وسنبقى نراوح مكاننا إذا لم تقم تجربة ثالثة لبناء القوس المصري – السوري كرافعة تاريخية مناهضة بالضرورة للتحالف الإمبريالي – الصهيوني- الرجعي– العثماني، فإما هذا القوس التاريخي وإما كيانات برسم التشظي إلى هويات قاتلة وكانتونات طائفية وجهوية ومجالات حيوية يتقاسمها العدو الصهيوني والعثمانيون الجدد تحت سقف الإمبريالية العالمية.
إن الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها حصراً
This is not an unexpected outcome for Japan but has been in the works for the last 50 years as a policy outlook of the Trilateral Commission (though is not limited to this institution). It is in fact the League of Nations’ vision that has been on the wish list of those who began WWI in hopes that the world would accept a one world government of regionalisations in service to an empire. It is what orchestrated the Great Depression to again attempt an implementation of a League of Nations outlook through the rise of a “National Socialist” brand of fascism seen in Italy and Germany (which would not have been possible without an economic crisis). And it was what launched a Second World War in a desperate attempt to forcefully implement such a vision onto the world (for more this refer here and here.)
It has always been about obtaining a League of Nations organization for the world and those who have called themselves democrats have often found themselves in the same room as those who called themselves fascists in order to see such a vision through.
As Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the father of Pan-Europeanism (who happened to also be pro-fascist), wrote in his 1943 autobiography “A Crusade for Pan-Europe”:
“The Anti-Fascists hated Hitler…yet they…paved the way to his successes. For these anti-Fascists succeeded in transforming Mussolini, Hitler’s strongest enemy during the years of 1933 and 1934, into Hitler’s strongest ally. I don’t blame the Italian and Spanish anti-Fascists for their brave and very natural fight against their ruthless political enemies. But I blame the democratic politicians, especially in France…they treated Mussolini as an ally of Hitler till he became one.”
According to Kalergi, and many other ‘elites’ of similar pedigree, it was an inevitability that a fascist Pan-European rule should occur, and Kalergi expressed his clear disdain for anti-fascist and democratic resistance to this ‘inevitability’. From Kalergi’s standpoint, because of the anti-fascist and democratic resistance to a more ‘peaceful’ transference to fascism, they had created a situation where fascism would have to be imposed on them with violent force. It was a tragedy in the eyes of Kalergi that could have been avoided if these countries had simply accepted fascism on ‘democratic’ terms.
Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi would write in his other autobiography “An Idea Conquers the World”:
“The use of mass hypnotism for propaganda purposes is most successful at times of crisis. When National Socialism made its bid for power, millions of Germans had been thrown completely off their balance: middle-class families had sunk to the level of the proletariat, whilst working-class families were without work. The Third Reich became the last hope for the stranded, of those who had lost their social status, and of those rootless beings who were seeking a new basis for an existence that had become meaningless…
The economic background of the Hitler movement becomes apparent when one recalls that Hitler’s two revolutions coincided with Germany’s two great economic crises: the inflation of 1923 and the recession of the early 1930s, with its wave of unemployment. During the six intervening years, which were relatively prosperous for Germany, the Hitler movement was virtually non-existent.” [emphasis added]
The father of Pan-Europeanism and spiritual father of the European Union, Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, often spoke well of Austrian and Italian fascism and even Catholic fascism, and thus the above quote by him takes on another layer of eeriness. Kalergi acknowledges that Hitler’s rise would not have been possible if there had not been two periods of extreme economic crisis for Germany. The question is, were these crises organic in their occurrence or rather engineered?
In Kalergi’s 1954 autobiography “An Idea Conquers the World,” he writes: “there is not doubt that Hitler’s popularity rested mainly on the fanatical struggle which he waged against the Versailles Treaty.”
If we look at the political ecosystem Kalergi was navigating in, we get some hints to such a question, which included such men as Max Warburg, Baron Louis Rothschild, Herbert Hoover, Secretary of State Frank Kellogg, Owen D. Young, Bernard Baruch, Walter Lippmann, Colonel House, General Tasker Bliss, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Thomas Lamont, Justice Hughes. All of these men are named by Kalergi directly as his support base in the United States in his autobiography. They were adamantly supportive of Kalergi’s Pan-Europeanism, aka a “United States of Europe,” were staunch supporters of a League of Nations vision and were architects within the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920) which was responsible for the Treaty of Versailles which launched Germany into its first wave of extreme economic crisis. (For more on this story refer here.)
Financial analyst and historian Alex Krainer writes:
“The [Trilateral] commission was co-founded in July of 1973 by David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski and a group of American, European and Japanese bankers, public officials and academics including Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker. It was set up to foster close cooperation among nations that constituted the three-block architecture of today’s western empire. That ‘close cooperation’ was intended as the very foundation of the empire’s ‘three block agenda,’ as formulated by the stewards of the undead British Empire.”
On Nov 9th, 1978, Trilateral Commission member Paul Volcker (Federal Reserve Chairman from 1979-1987) would affirm at a lecture delivered at Warwick University in England: “A controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object for the 1980s.” This is also the ideology that has shaped Milton Friedman’s “Shock Therapy”.
In 1975 the CFR launched a public study of global policy titled the 1980’s Project. The general theme was “controlled disintegration” of the world economy, and the report did not attempt to hide the famine, social chaos, and death its policy would bring upon most of the world’s population.
This is precisely what Japan has been undergoing, and which economist Richard Werner demonstrated in his book Princes of Yen, to which a documentary by the same name was made. That Japan’s economy was put through a manufactured bubble in order to create an economic crisis that would then justify the need for extreme structural reform.
We will now briefly discuss how the United States, the Tiger Economies and Europe have also been put through the same process of manufactured economic crises and what this means for the world today, what has been the consequence for Europe in following a “United States of Europe” model and how does the one world government model of a League of Nations differ from the multipolar framework made up of sovereign nation states. I will conclude this paper with remarks on why Shinzo Abe was assassinated.
Colonialism 2.0: The Asian Economic Crisis of the Tiger Economies
Japan was not the only high-performance economy in Asia that in the 1990s found itself in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. In 1997, the currencies of the Southeast Asian Tiger Economies could not maintain a fixed exchange rate with the U.S. dollar. They collapsed by between 60-80% within a year.
The causes for this crash went as far back as 1993. In that year, the Asian Tiger Economies – South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia – implemented a policy of aggressive deregulation of their capital accounts and the establishment of international banking facilities, which enabled the corporate and banking sectors to borrow liberally from abroad, the first time in the postwar era that borrowers could do so. In reality, there was no need for the Asian Tiger Economies to borrow money from abroad. All the money necessary for domestic investment could be created at home.
“Indeed the pressure to liberalise capital flows came from outside. Since the early 1990s, the IMF, the World Trade Organization and the U.S. Treasury had been lobbying these countries to allow domestic firms to borrow from abroad. They argued that neoclassical economics had proven that free markets and free capital movement increased economic growth.
Once the capital accounts had been deregulated, the central banks set about creating irresistible incentives for domestic firms to borrow from abroad by making it more expensive to borrow in their own domestic currencies than it was to borrow in U.S. dollars.
The central banks emphasised in their public statements that they would maintain fixed exchange rates with the U.S. dollar, so that borrowers did not have to worry about paying back more in their domestic currencies than they had originally borrowed. Banks were ordered to increase lending. But they were faced with less loan demand from the productive sectors of the economy, because these firms had been given incentives to borrow from abroad instead. They therefore had to resort to increasing their lending to higher-risk borrowers.
Imports began to shrink, because the central banks had agreed to peg their currencies to the U.S. dollar. The economies became less competitive, but their current-account balance was maintained due to the foreign issued loans, which count as exports in the balance-of-payments statistics. When speculators began to sell the Thai baht, the Korean won and the Indonesian rupee, the respective central banks responded with futile attempts to maintain the peg until they had squandered virtually all of their foreign exchange reserves. This gave foreign lenders ample opportunity to withdraw their money at the overvalued exchange rates.
The central banks knew that if the countries ran out of foreign exchange reserves, they would have to call in the IMF to avoid default. And once the IMF came in, the central banks knew what this Washington-based institution would demand, for its demands in such cases had been the same for the previous three decades: the central banks would be made independent [and subservient to the IMF diktat].
On the 16th of July the Thai Finance Minister took a plane to Tokyo to ask Japan for a bailout. At the time Japan had USD $213 billion in foreign exchange reserves, more than the total resources of the IMF. They were willing to help but Washington stopped Japan’s initiative. Any solution to the emerging Asian Crisis had to come from Washington via the IMF.
After two months of speculative attacks the Thai government floated the baht.
The IMF to date has promised almost $120 billion USD to the embattled economies of Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea. Immediately upon arrival in the crisis-stricken countries, the IMF teams set up offices inside the central banks, from where they dictated what amounted to terms of surrender. The IMF demanded a string of policies, including curbs on central bank and bank credit creation, major legal changes and sharp rises in interest rates. As interest rates rose, high risk borrowers began to default on their loans.
Burdened with large amounts of bad debts, the banking systems of Thailand, Korea, and Indonesia were virtually bankrupt. Even otherwise healthy firms started to suffer from the widening credit crunch. Corporate bankruptcies soared. Unemployment rose to the highest levels since the 1930s.”
The IMF knew well what the consequences of its policies would be. In the Korean case, they even had detailed but undisclosed studies prepared, that had calculated just how many Korean companies would go bankrupt if interest rates were to rise by five percentage points. The IMF’s first agreement with Korea demanded a rise of exactly five percentage points in interest rates.
Richard Werner stated in an interview: “The IMF policies are clearly not aimed at creating economic recoveries in the Asian countries. They pursue quite a different agenda and that is to change the economic, political and social systems in those countries. In fact, the IMF deals prevent the countries concerned, like Korea, Thailand, to reflate.”
Interviewer: “Interesting. So you’re saying it’s making the crisis worse and you’re suggesting that the IMF has a hidden agenda?”
Richard Werner responded: “Well, it’s not very hidden this agenda because the IMF quite clearly demands that the Asian countries concerned have to change the laws so that foreign interests can buy anything from banks to land. And in fact, the banking systems can only be recapitalised, according to the IMF deals, by using foreign money which is not necessary at all, because as long as these countries have central banks, they could just print money and recapitalise the banking systems. You don’t need foreign money for that. So the agenda is clearly to crack open Asia for foreign interests.”
The IMF demanded that troubled banks not be bailed out, but instead closed down and sold off cheaply as distressed assets, often to large U.S. investment banks. In most cases the IMF-dictated-letters-of-intent explicitly stated that the banks had to be sold to foreign investors.
In Asia, government organised bailouts to keep ailing financial institutions alive were not allowed. But when a similar crisis struck back home in America a year later, the very same institutions reacted differently.
“The Connecticut based hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management, which accepted as clients only high-net-worth individual investors and institutions, had leveraged its $5 billion USD in client capital, by more than 25 times, borrowing more than $100 billion USD from the world’s banks. When its losses had threatened to undermine the banks that had lent to it, with the possibility of a systemic banking crisis that would endanger the U.S. financial system and economy, the Federal Reserve organised a cartel-like bailout by leaning on Wall Street and international banks to contribute funds so that it could avoid default.
Why would the United States make demands on foreign nations in the name of the free market, when it has no intention of enforcing the same rules within its own borders?
The examples of the Japanese and Asian crises illustrate how crises can be engineered to facilitate the redistribution of economic ownership, and to implement legal, structural and political change.”
The reason why the Asian banks were forbidden to be saved, was so there could be a foreign buy-out of these Asian economies. Who needed the British East-India Co. when you now had the IMF ensuring the empire’s colonial objectives?
The IMF and Trilateral Commission’s “not so Hidden” Agenda
The IMF has clearly set its sights on a western banking take-over of Asia, but what was the “agenda” for Europe and the United States who were located within this sphere of influence? Were they destined to benefit from the plunders of the empire?
The short answer to this, which should be evident by now, is no.
The manufactured crises in the United States and Europe were to further centralise power amongst an ever smaller grouping and clearly not for the benefit of the people, or shall we say subjects of the land, who happen to be living in these regions.
Europe has particularly done a number on itself due to its adherence to a “United States of Europe” vision. Countries within the Euro currency bloc had forfeited their right to a national currency and handed this power to the European Central Bank (ECB), the most powerful and secretive of all central banks.
Under such a system, no European country has control over its own economy and is completely exposed to whatever the ECB decides.
Richard Werner remarked: “They [ECB] have to focus more on credit creation rather than interest rates. The ECB has a lot to learn from its past mistakes, because basically I don’t think it really watched credit creation carefully enough. Where in Spain, Ireland, we had massive credit expansion, under the watch of the ECB, interest rates are of course the same in the Eurozone, but the quantity of credit cycle is very different…There is one interest rate for the whole euro area but in 2002 the ECB told the Bundesbank [central bank of Germany] to reduce its credit creation by the biggest amount in its history and told the Irish central bank to print as much money as if there was no tomorrow. What do you expect is going to happen? Same interest rate. Is it the same growth? No. Recession in Germany, boom in Ireland. Which variable tells you that? Credit creation.”
From 2004 under the ECB’s watch, bank credit growth in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain increased by over 20% per annum and property prices sky-rocketed. When bank credit fell, property prices collapsed, developers went bankrupt and the banking systems of Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece became insolvent.
“The ECB could have prevented these bubbles just as it could have ended the ensuing banking and economic crises. But it refused to do so until major political concessions had been made, such as the transfer of fiscal and budgeting powers from each sovereign state to the European Union.
In both Spain and Greece, youth unemployment has been pushed up to 50%, forcing many youths to seek employment abroad. The deliberations of the ECB’s decision-making bodies are secret. The mere attempt at influencing the ECB, for instance through democratic debate and discussion, is forbidden according to the Maastricht Treaty.
The ECB is an international organisation that is above and outside the laws of jurisdictions of any individual nation. Its senior staff carry diplomatic passports and the files and documents inside the European Central Bank cannot be searched or impounded by any police force or public prosecutor.
The European Commission, an unelected group whose aim is to build a ‘United States of Europe,’ with all the trappings of a unified state has an interest in weaking individual governments and the influence of the democratic parliaments of Europe. It turns out that the evidence for central-bank independence that was relied upon in the Maastricht Treaty derived from a single study that was commissioned by none other than the European Commission itself.”
The Fascist Roots of the ‘United States of Europe’
On February 15th, 1930, Churchill published in The Saturday Evening an articled titled “The United States of Europe,” where he wrote:[1]
“…The resuscitation of the Pan-European idea is largely identified with Count Coudenhove-Kalergi…The League of Nations, from which the United States have so imprudently – considering their vast and increasing interests – absented themselves, has perforce become in fact, if not in form, primarily a European institution. Count Coudenhove-Kalergi proposes to concentrate European forces, interests and sentiments in a single branch which, if it grew, would become the trunk itself, and thus acquire obvious predominance. For think how mighty Europe is, but for its divisions! Let Russia slide back, as Count Kalergi proposes, and as it is already so largely a fact, into Asia. Let the British Empire, excluded in his plan, realize its own world-spread ideal, even so, the mass of Europe, once united, once federalized or partially federalized, once continentally self-conscious-Europe, with its African and Asiatic possessions and plantations, would constitute an organism beyond compare.” [emphasis added]
In Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s “An Idea Conquers the World” he writes:
“I discovered to my surprise that the feeling of European consciousness had first shown itself during the Crusades. After the fall of the Roman Empire the Crusades represented the most vigorous display of European solidarity. For a time, feuds between kings, princes and cities were submerged in a common cause…Finally, in 1834, Mazzini founded Young Europe, a movement designed to coordinate all existing revolutionary movements with a view to building up a new and united Europe on a basis of nationalism and democracy.” [emphasis added]
Interestingly Kalergi would write that Giuseppe Mazzini who Kalergi considered the most modern organizer towards a “united Europe on a basis of nationalism and democracy” was also considered the forerunner of fascism in Italy. Kalergi writes:[2]
“Fascism at that time [in Italy] had not yet broken with parliamentarism and democracy. The new Italian government was a government of coalition; it respected the principle of constitutional monarchy, pretending only to give it new vigor and authority. It appealed to the heroic instincts of youth, to the spirit of sacrifice and of idealism. It tried to restore the respect for religious values and the glorious traditions of ancient Rome. It hailed the memory of Mazzini as a forerunner of Fascism.” [emphasis added]
The theme of the Crusaders would be central to Kalergi’s idea for a Pan-Europe, to which he even incorporated the symbol of the Crusaders within his flag for the Pan-European cause.
In his 1943 autobiography, Kalergi further expands on his theme of the Crusader of Pan-Europe:[3]
“I chose the sign of the red cross superimposed on a golden sun as the emblem of our movement. The red cross, which had been the flag of the medieval crusaders, seemed the oldest known symbol of supra-national European brotherhood. In more recent times it has also gained recognition as a symbol of international relief work. The sun was chosen to represent the achievements of European culture in helping to illuminate the world. Thus, Hellenism and Christianity – the cross of Christ and the sun of Apollo – figured side by side as the twin enduring pillars of European civilization.” [emphasis added]
This idea of a “United States of Europe”, Kalergi’s “Pan-Europe” vision was a clever and dishonest play on words. The United States had originally existed in the form of 13 colonies beholden to the British Empire. However, when the United States maneuvered for independence from the British Empire by organizing itself into a sovereign nation state, the founding fathers unified the new republic around a system of Hamiltonian banking. This innovation in political economy converted unpayable debts into a new system of federal credit, enacted federal protectionism to favor local industrial growth and vectored the banks around investments which improved the General Welfare.
Thus, the United States was able to form one currency and a national bank to facilitate trade which upheld the economic sovereignty of the newly created nation.
This Hamiltonian economic organization in turn influenced German economist Friedrich List’s “The National System of Political Economy” which led to the Zollverein. Germany at the time was also divided into regions like the United States (Germany had never really been a nation up until this point) and the Zollverein allowed for Germany to begin establishing itself as a sovereign nation state for the first time in history. Friedrich List had directly referred to the Hamiltonian economic system as his inspiration for Germany. This system had also influenced Sun Yat-sen the father of the Republic of China in his “The Three Principles of the People” which was a direct reference to Lincoln/Henry C. Carey’s economic program which itself was a continuation of Alexander Hamilton’s economic principles. This was also revived in the form of American pro-Lincoln economists in Japan who helped organize the industrial growth program begun with the Meiji Restoration.
This is what the multi-polar framework is continuing, the defense and growth of sovereign nation-states. Yes, there is regional cooperation. You need regional cooperation for big infrastructure projects, such as rail, that will involve numerous nations. But regional cooperation should not be confused with a League of Nations vision and we can easily tell the difference between the two in terms of what is actually being proposed politically and economically. I will be writing a paper in the near future to address this subject more directly but for now I would refer the reader here for more on this.
In the case of the League of Nations, Pan-Europe, United States of Europe etc. etc. vision, it was the very opposite. It was to take power away from the sovereign nation-state framework and transform nations into vassal states subservient to systems of empire. That is, the “United States of Europe” was a dishonest and misleading reference to the original 13 American colonies. It was dishonest because instead of promoting further national economic sovereignty, the nations within Europe were expected to remove their sovereignty and be beholden to a centralised control through a European Union (centralised political power) and European Central Bank (centralised economic power) and NATO (centralised military power). No country within Europe would have control over their political, economic or military destiny within such a stranglehold.
In order for the League of Nations vision to take-over, sovereign nation-states would have to be dismantled. For more on this story refer to my book “The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set.”
What the American and European economic crises have taught us is that the tax-payer will be made to pay for the increasing centralised take-over of what were once sovereign economies in order to empower a very small grouping of people, as the rights and welfare of average citizens are increasingly viewed as irrelevant.
Why Shinzo Abe was Assassinated
Former Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe was assassinated July 8th, 2022, and though no longer in the position of Prime Minister of Japan at the time of his assassination (having served from 2006-2007 and 2012- September 16, 2020) he was the longest serving prime minister in Japanese history and continued to exert major influence on policy-shaping within Japan.
News of Abe’s assassination was received around the world with an admixture of very strong emotion from both extremes. Some were horrified by his death and praised what he had done for Japan as something almost saintly. Others ecstatically celebrated his death, thinking no possible good could come from him due to his attempts to revive the dark side of Japan’s imperial past and his public displays of tribute to the Japanese fascists from WWII. When the news was still fresh and the frenzy of confusion at its peak, many even blamed China for the orchestration of Abe’s death, thinking they were clearly the ones to benefit from such an act.
It is true that Abe had a very dangerous and destructive mission to restore Japan to its status as an imperialistic empire. He was a corrupt insider who pushed for the dangerous privatization of the Japanese government and increased the gap between the wealthy and middle-class citizens. However, it is also too simplistic as to celebrate his death as an absolute triumph. As we can clearly see seven months after Abe’s assassination, Japan has not become more peaceful and ready for dialogue with its eastern partners but rather has become much more bellicose and stauncher in its cooperation with the increasingly war frenzied western demands. Japan has also greatly severed motion towards greater economic and political cooperation with Russia and China, which was still moving forward when Abe was alive.
It is also interesting to note that Abe was assassinated weeks before Pelosi’s Circus Tour to Taiwan. Although Pelosi’s provocation did not amount to any military confrontation, we cannot say that that was not its intention, nor that things could have played out very differently in terms of a military confrontation between China and the United States.
The reader should be reminded that in 2014, Japan had changed or “reinterpreted” its constitution which gave more powers to the Japan Self-Defense Forces, allowing them to “defend other allies” in case of war being declared upon them. The United States, of course, fully supported the move.
This “reinterpretation” of Japan’s constitution effectively entered it into NATO.
In December 2022, Japan announced a new national security strategy. This new strategy would double defense spending. Japan also plans to invest in counter-strike capabilities, including buying U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles and developing its own weapons systems.
It was precisely Abe’s grand vision of Japan returning to its “glory” days as an empire that was problematic for the League of Nations vision, for if Japan saw itself on par with other great empires, or perhaps even greater, it meant that it did not ultimately intend to bend the knee. That is, Abe was not willing to sell off Japan as a satrapy, however, that was exactly what the western diktat was essentially demanding of Japan. Under this western diktat Japan was being ordered to accept its fate to collapse economically and sink into desperation, become increasingly militaristic and extremist and lead a kamikaze charge into a war with China and Russia which would lead to the ruination of the Japanese civilization. It does not look like Abe was going to go along with that stark vision for Japan.
Pastreich writes: “[Abe]…was already the longest serving prime minister in Japanese history, and had plans for a third bid as prime minister, when he was struck down.
Needless to say, the powers behind the World Economic Forum do not want national leaders like Abe, even if they conform with the global agenda, because they are capable of organizing resistance within the nation state.
…In the case of Russia, Abe successfully negotiated a complex peace treaty with Russia in 2019 that would have normalized relations and solved the dispute concerning the Northern Territories (the Kuril Islands in Russian). He was able to secure energy contracts for Japanese firms and to find investment opportunities in Russia even as Washington ramped up the pressure on Tokyo for sanctions.
The journalist Tanaka Sakai notes that Abe was not banned from entering Russia after the Russian government banned all other representatives of the Japanese government from entry.
Abe also engaged China seriously, solidifying long-term institutional ties, and pursuing free trade agreement negotiations that reached a breakthrough in the fifteenth round of talks (April 9-12, 2019). Abe had ready access to leading Chinese politicians and he was considered by them to be reliable and predictable, even though his rhetoric was harshly anti-Chinese.
The critical event that likely triggered the process leading to Abe’s assassination was the NATO summit in Madrid (June 28-30).
The NATO summit was a moment when the hidden players behind the scenes laid down the law for the new global order. NATO is on a fast track to evolve beyond an alliance to defend Europe and to become an unaccountable military power, working with the Global Economic Forum, the billionaires and the bankers around the world, as a ‘world army,’ functioning much as the British East India Company did in another era.
The decision to invite to the NATO summit the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand was a critical part of this NATO transformation.
These four nations were invited to join in an unprecedented level of integration in security, including intelligence sharing (outsourcing to big tech multinationals), the use of advanced weapons systems (that must be administrated by the personnel of multinationals like Lockheed Martin), joint exercises (that set a precedent for an oppressive decision-making process), and other ‘collaborative’ approaches that undermine the chain of command within the nation state.
When Kishida returned to Tokyo on July first, there can be no doubt that one of his first meetings was with Abe. Kishida explained to Abe the impossible conditions that the Biden administration had demanded of Japan.
The White House, by the way, is now entirely the tool of globalists like Victoria Nuland (Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs) and others trained by the Bush clan.
The demands made of Japan were suicidal in nature. Japan was to increase economic sanctions on Russia, to prepare for possible war with Russia, and to prepare for a war with China. Japan’s military, intelligence and diplomatic functions were to be transferred to the emerging blob of private contractors gathering for the feast around NATO.
We do not know what Abe did during the week before his death. Most likely he launched into a sophisticated political play, using of all his assets in Washington D.C., Beijing, and Moscow—as well as in Jerusalem, Berlin, and London, to come up with a multi-tiered response that would give the world the impression that Japan was behind Biden all the way, while Japan sought out a détente with China and Russia through the back door.”
Let us be honest here, since the hot mess should be rather plain for everyone to see at this point; those who are in the position of pushing the IMF, NATO, World Economic Forum’s disastrous policies are not the brains in the room. The embarrassment of less than two-month former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who did not even know Russian territory from Ukrainian territory, responding that she would never recognise Rostov and Voronezh as Russian, is just one of too many examples that are occurring on an almost daily basis. These are the perfect tools for such insane policies for this very reason, they do not understand what outcome they are ultimately pushing. They are absolutely clueless and thus expendable as the card-board cut-outs that they are.
The reality of the situation is that no nation is expected to survive this stand-off.
It is not about the western bloc against the eastern bloc. It is about the ruination of all nations and the formation of one empire, or if you prefer the wording, one world government. Again, this is the League of Nations vision that has been the wet dream of a very small grouping since the First World War.
It is not about western democracy or liberalism or western value systems. It is about, and has only ever been about the reinstitution of systems of empire. This is what the First World War was about, this was what the Second World War was about and it is what the Third World War is about.
Interestingly, we again see Germany and Japan positioned next to the trip-wire that is ready to launch the globe into another full-blown world war. And guess what will be the fate of those two countries, Germany and Japan, who’s automaton ‘leadership’ so foolishly think of themselves as included within the ‘elite’ grouping who will somehow survive after setting the world on fire, as they so foolishly made the mistake of thinking during the Second World War. They will see once again how expendable their people, their civilization are to this ‘elite’ grouping they so desperately want to be accepted by.
One thing is for certain since Abe’s assassination. Japan is moving ever more rapidly forward on a very dangerous path that threatens it to be once again on the wrong side of history. The question is, are Germany and Japan so foolish as to make the same mistake twice, for they should not assume they will survive such a reckoning a second time.
The author can be reached at cynthiachung.substack.com.
Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 198-200. ↑
Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1943) Crusade for Pan-Europe: Autobiography of a Man and a Movement. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, pg. 78. ↑
Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. (1954) An Idea Conquers the World. Purcell & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pg. 98.
Germany has become an economic satellite of America’s New Cold War with Russia, China and the rest of Eurasia. Germany and other NATO countries have been told to impose trade and investment sanctions upon themselves that will outlast today’s proxy war in Ukraine. U.S. President Biden and his State Department spokesmen have explained that Ukraine is just the opening arena in a much broader dynamic that is splitting the world into two opposing sets of economic alliances. This global fracture promises to be a ten- or twenty-year struggle to determine whether the world economy will be a unipolar U.S.-centered dollarized economy, or a multipolar, multi-currency world centered on the Eurasian heartland with mixed public/private economies.
President Biden has characterized this split as being between democracies and autocracies. The terminology is typical Orwellian double-speak. By “democracies” he means the U.S. and allied Western financial oligarchies. Their aim is to shift economic planning out of the hands of elected governments to Wall Street and other financial centers under U.S. control. U.S. diplomats use the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to demand privatization of the world’s infrastructure and dependency on U.S. technology, oil and food exports.
By “autocracy,” Biden means countries resisting this financialization and privatization takeover. In practice, U.S. rhettoric means promoting its own economic growth and living standards, keeping finance and banking as public utilities. What basically is at issue is whether economies will be planned by banking centers to create financial wealth – by privatizing basic infrastructure, public utilities and social services such as health care into monopolies – or by raising living standards and prosperity by keeping banking and money creation, public health, education, transportation and communications in public hands.
The country suffering the most “collateral damage” in this global fracture is Germany. As Europe’s most advanced industrial economy, German steel, chemicals, machinery, automotives and other consumer goods are the most highly dependent on imports of Russian gas, oil and metals from aluminum to titanium and palladium. Yet despite two Nord Stream pipelines built to provide Germany with low-priced energy, Germany has been told to cut itself off from Russian gas and de-industrialize. This means the end of its economic preeminence. The key to GDP growth in Germany, as in other countries, is energy consumption per worker.
These anti-Russian sanctions make today’s New Cold War inherently anti-German. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has said that Germany should replace low-priced Russian pipeline gas with high-priced U.S. LNG gas. To import this gas, Germany will have to spend over $5 billion quickly to build port capacity to handle LNG tankers. The effect will be to make German industry uncompetitive. Bankruptcies will spread, employment will decline, and Germany’s pro-NATO leaders will impose a chronic depression and falling living standards.
Most political theory assumes that nations will act in their own self-interest. Otherwise they are satellite countries, not in control of their own fate. Germany is subordinating its industry and living standards to the dictates of U.S. diplomacy and the self-interest of America’s oil and gas sector. It is doing this voluntarily – not because of military force but out of an ideological belief that the world economy should be run by U.S. Cold War planners.
Sometimes it is easier to understand today’s dynamics by stepping away from one’s own immediate situation to look at historical examples of the kind of political diplomacy that one sees splitting today’s world. The closest parallel that I can find is medieval Europe’s fight by the Roman papacy against German kings – the Holy Roman Emperors – in the 13th century. That conflict split Europe along lines much like those of today. A series of popes excommunicated Frederick II and other German kings and mobilized allies to fight against Germany and its control of southern Italy and Sicily.
Western antagonism against the East was incited by the Crusades (1095-1291), just as today’s Cold War is a crusade against economies threatening U.S. dominance of the world. The medieval war against Germany was over who should control Christian Europe: the papacy, with the popes becoming worldly emperors, or secular rulers of individual kingdoms by claiming the power to morally legitimize and accept them.
Medieval Europe’s analogue to America’s New Cold War against China and Russia was the Great Schism in 1054. Demanding unipolar control over Christendom, Leo IX excommunicated the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople and the entire Christian population that belonged to it. A single bishopric, Rome, cut itself off from the entire Christian world of the time, including the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem.
This break-away created a political problem for Roman diplomacy: How to hold all the Western European kingdoms under its control and claim the right for financial subsidy from them. That aim required subordinating secular kings to papal religious authority. In 1074, Gregory VII, Hildebrand, announced 27 Papal Dictates outlining the administrative strategy for Rome to lock in its power over Europe.
These papal demands are strikingly parallel to today’s U.S. diplomacy. In both cases military and worldly interests require a sublimation in the form of an ideological crusading spirit to cement the sense of solidarity that any system of imperial domination requires. The logic is timeless and universal.
The Papal Dictates were radical in two major ways. First of all, they elevated the bishop of Rome above all other bishoprics, creating the modern papacy. Clause 3 ruled that the pope alone had the power of investiture to appoint bishops or to depose or reinstate them. Reinforcing this, Clause 25 gave the right of appointing (or deposing) bishops to the pope, not to local rulers. And Clause 12 gave the pope the right to depose emperors, following Clause 9, obliging “all princes to kiss the feet of the Pope alone” in order to be deemed legitimate rulers.
Likewise today, U.S. diplomats claim the right to name who should be recognized as a nation’s head of state. In 1953 they overthrew Iran’s elected leader and replaced him with the Shah’s military dictatorship. That principle gives U.S. diplomats the right to sponsor “color revolutions” for regime-change, such as their sponsorship of Latin American military dictatorships creating client oligarchies to serve U.S. corporate and financial interests. The 2014 coup in Ukraine is just the latest exercise of this U.S. right to appoint and depose leaders.
More recently, U.S. diplomats have appointed Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s head of state instead of its elected president, and turned over that country’s gold reserves to him. President Biden has insisted that Russia must remove Putin and put a more pro-U.S. leader in his place. This “right” to select heads of state has been a constant in U.S. policy spanning its long history of political meddling in European political affairs since World War II.
The second radical feature of the Papal Dictates was their exclusion of all ideology and policy that diverged from papal authority. Clause 2 stated that only the Pope could be called “Universal.” Any disagreement was, by definition, heretical. Clause 17 stated that no chapter or book could be considered canonical without papal authority.
A similar demand as is being made by today’s U.S.-sponsored ideology of financialized and privatized “free markets,” meaning deregulation of government power to shape economies in interests other than those of U.S.-centered financial and corporate elites.
The demand for universality in today’s New Cold War is cloaked in the language of “democracy.” But the definition of democracy in today’s New Cold War is simply “pro-U.S.,” and specifically neoliberal privatization as the U.S.-sponsored new economic religion. This ethic is deemed to be “science,” as in the quasi-Nobel Memorial Prize in the Economic Sciences. That is the modern euphemism for neoliberal Chicago-School junk economics, IMF austerity programs and tax favoritism for the wealthy.
The Papal Dictates spelt out a strategy for locking in unipolar control over secular realms. They asserted papal precedence over worldly kings, above all over Germany’s Holy Roman Emperors. Clause 26 gave popes authority to excommunicate whomever was “not at peace with the Roman Church.” That principle implied the concluding Claus 27, enabling the pope to “absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.” This encouraged the medieval version of “color revolutions” to bring about regime change.
What united countries in this solidarity was an antagonism to societies not subject to centralized papal control – the Moslem Infidels who held Jerusalem, and also the French Cathars and anyone else deemed to be a heretic. Above all there was hostility toward regions strong enough to resist papal demands for financial tribute.
Today’s counterpart to such ideological power to excommunicate heretics resisting demands for obedience and tribute would be the World Trade Organization, World Bank and IMF dictating economic practices and setting “conditionalities” for all member governments to follow, on pain of U.S. sanctions – the modern version of excommunication of countries not accepting U.S. suzerainty. Clause 19 of the Dictates ruled that the pope could be judged by no one – just as today, the United States refuses to subject its actions to rulings by the World Court. Likewise today, U.S. dictates via NATO and other arms (such as the IMF and World Bank) are expected to be followed by U.S. satellites without question. As Margaret Thatcher said of her neoliberal privatization that destroyed Britain’s public sector, There Is No Alternative (TINA).
My point is to emphasize the analogy with today’s U.S. sanctions against all countries not following its own diplomatic demands. Trade sanctions are a form of excommunication. They reverse the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia’s principle that made each country and its rulers independent from foreign meddling. President Biden characterizes U.S. interference as ensuring his new antithesis between “democracy” and “autocracy.” By democracy he means a client oligarchy under U.S. control, creating financial wealth by reducing living standards for labor, as opposed to mixed public/private economies aiming at promoting living standards and social solidarity.
As I have mentioned, by excommunicating the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople and its Christian population, the Great Schism created the fateful religious dividing line that has split “the West” from the East for the past millennium. That split was so important that Vladimir Putin cited it as part of his September 30, 2022 speech describing today’s break away from the U.S. and NATO centered Western economies.
The 12th and 13th centuries saw Norman conquerors of England, France and other countries, along with German kings, protest repeatedly, be excommunicated repeatedly, yet ultimately succumb to papal demands. It took until the 16th century for Martin Luther, Zwingli and Henry VIII finally to create a Protestant alternative to Rome, making Western Christianity multi-polar.
Why did it take so long? The answer is that the Crusades provided an organizing ideological gravity. That was the medieval analogy to today’s New Cold War between East and West. The Crusades created a spiritual focus of “moral reform” by mobilizing hatred against “the other” – the Moslem East, and increasingly Jews and European Christian dissenters from Roman control. That was the medieval analogy to today’s neoliberal “free market” doctrines of America’s financial oligarchy and its hostility to China, Russia and other nations not following that ideology. In today’s New Cold War, the West’s neoliberal ideology is mobilizing fear and hatred of “the other,” demonizing nations that follow an independent path as “autocratic regimes.” Outright racism is fostered toward entire peoples, as evident in the Russophobia and Cancel Culture currently sweeping the West.
Just as Western Christianity’s multi-polar transition required the 16th century’s Protestant alternative, the Eurasian heartland’s break from the bank-centered NATO West must be consolidated by an alternative ideology regarding how to organize mixed public/private economies and their financial infrastructure.
Medieval churches in the West were drained of their alms and endowments to contribute Peter’s Pence and other subsidy to the papacy for the wars it was fighting against rulers who resisted papal demands. England played the role of major victim that Germany plays today. Enormous English taxes were levied ostensibly to finance the Crusades were diverted to fight Frederick II, Conrad and Manfred in Sicily. That diversion was financed by papal bankers from northern Italy (Lombards and Cahorsins), and became royal debts passed down throughout the economy. England’s barons waged a civil war against Henry II in the 1260s, ending his complicity in sacrificing the economy to papal demands.
What ended the papacy’s power over other countries was the ending of its war against the East. When the Crusaders lost Acre, the capital of Jerusalem in 1291, the papacy lost its control over Christendom. There was no more “evil” to fight, and the “good” had lost its center of gravity and coherence. In 1307, France’s Philip IV (“the Fair”) seized the Church’s great military banking order’s wealth, that of the Templars in the Paris Temple. Other rulers also nationalized the Templars, and monetary systems were taken out of the hands of the Church. Without a common enemy defined and mobilized by Rome, the papacy lost its unipolar ideological power over Western Europe.
The modern equivalent to the rejection of the Templars and papal finance would be for countries to withdraw from America’s New Cold War. They would reject the dollar standard and the U.S. banking and financial system. that is happening as more and more countries see Russia and China not as adversaries but as presenting great opportunities for mutual economic advantage.
The broken promise of mutual gain between Germany and Russia
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 promised an end to the Cold War. The Warsaw Pact was disbanded, Germany was reunified, and American diplomats promised an end to NATO, because a Soviet military threat no longer existed. Russian leaders indulged in the hope that, as President Putin expressed it, a new pan-European economy would be created from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Germany in particular was expected to take the lead in investing in Russia and restructuring its industry along more efficient lines. Russia would pay for this technology transfer by supplying gas and oil, along with nickel, aluminum, titanium and palladium.
There was no anticipation that NATO would be expanded to threaten a New Cold War, much less that it would back Ukraine, recognized as the most corrupt kleptocracy in Europe, into being led by extremist parties identifying themselves by German Nazi insignia.
How do we explain why the seemingly logical potential of mutual gain between Western Europe and the former Soviet economies turned into a sponsorship of oligarchic kleptocracies. The Nord Stream pipeline’s destruction capsulizes the dynamics in a nutshell. For almost a decade a constant U.S. demand has been for Germany to reject its reliance on Russian energy. These demands were opposed by Gerhardt Schroeder, Angela Merkel and German business leaders. They pointed to the obvious economic logic of mutual trade of German manufactures for Russian raw materials.
The U.S. problem was how to stop Germany from approving the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Victoria Nuland, President Biden and other U.S. diplomats demonstrated that the way to do that was to incite a hatred of Russia. The New Cold War was framed as a new Crusade. That was how George W. Bush had described America’s attack on Iraq to seize its oil wells. The U.S.-sponsored 2014 coup created a puppet Ukrainian regime that has spent eight years bombing of the Russian-speaking Eastern provinces. NATO thus incited a Russian military response. The incitement was successful, and the desired Russian response was duly labeled an unprovoked atrocity. Its protection of civilians was depicted in the NATO-sponsored media as being so offensive as to deserve the trade and investment sanctions that have been imposed since February. That is what a Crusade means.
The result is that the world is splitting in two camps: the U.S.-centered NATO, and the emerging Eurasian coalition. One byproduct of this dynamic has been to leave Germany unable to pursue the economic policy of mutually advantageous trade and investment relations with Russia (and perhaps also China). German Chancellor Olaf Sholz is going to China this week to demand that it dismantle is public sector and stops subsidizing its economy, or else Germany and Europe will impose sanctions on trade with China. There is no way that China could meet this ridiculous demand, any more than the United States or any other industrial economy would stop subsidizing their own computer-chip and other key sectors.[1] The German Council on Foreign Relations is a neoliberal “libertarian” arm of NATO demanding German de-industrialization and dependency on the United States for its trade, excluding China, Russia and their allies. This promises to be the final nail in Germany’s economic coffin.
Another byproduct of America’s New Cold War has been to end any international plan to stem global warming. A keystone of U.S. economic diplomacy is for its oil companies and those of its NATO allies to control the world’s oil and gas supply – that is, to reduce dependence on carbon-based fuels. That is what the NATO war in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine was about. It is not as abstract as “Democracies vs. Autocracies.” It is about the U.S. ability to harm other countries by disrupting their access to energy and other basic needs.
Without the New Cold War’s “good vs. evil” narrative, U.S. sanctions will lose their raison d’etre in this U.S. attack on environmental protection, and on mutual trade between Western Europe and Russia and China. That is the context for today’s fight in Ukraine, which is to be merely the first step in the anticipated 20 year fight by the US to prevent the world from becoming multipolar. This process, will lock Germany and Europe into dependence on the U.S. supplies of LNG.
The trick is to try and convince Germany that it is dependent on the United States for its military security. What Germany really needs protection from is the U.S. war against China and Russia that is marginalizing and “Ukrainianizing” Europe.
There have been no calls by Western governments for a negotiated end to this war, because no war has been declared in Ukraine. The United States does not declare war anywhere, because that would require a Congressional declaration under the U.S. Constitution. So U.S. and NATO armies bomb, organize color revolutions, meddle in domestic politics (rendering the 1648 Westphalia agreements obsolete), and impose the sanctions that are tearing Germany and its European neighbors apart.
How can negotiations “end” a war that either has no declaration of war, and is a long-term strategy of total unipolar world domination?
The answer is that no ending can come until an alternative to the present U.S.-centered set of international institutions is replaced. That requires the creation of new institutions reflecting an alternative to the neoliberal bank-centered view that economies should be privatized with central planning by financial centers. Rosa Luxemburg characterized the choice as being between socialism and barbarism. I have sketched out the political dynamics of an alternative in my recent book, The Destiny of Civilization.
See Guntram Wolff, “Sholz should send an explicit message on his visit to Beijing,” Financial Times, October 31, 2022. Wolff is the director and CE of the German Council on Foreign Relations. ↑
Never underestimate a wounded and decaying Empire collapsing in real time.
Imperial functionaries, even in a “diplomatic” capacity, continue to brazenly declare that their exceptionalist control over the world is mandatory.
If that’s not the case, competitors may emerge and steal the limelight – monopolized by US oligarchies. That, of course, is absolute anathema.
The imperial modus operandi against geopolitical and geoeconomic competitors remains the same: avalanche of sanctions, embargos, economic blockades, protectionist measures, cancel culture, military uptick in neighboring nations, and assorted threats. But most of all, warmongering rhetoric – currently elevated to fever pitch.
The hegemon may be “transparent” at least in this domain because it still controls a massive international network of institutions, financial bodies, politicos, CEOs, propaganda agencies and the pop culture industry. Hence this supposed invulnerability breeding insolence.
Panic in the “garden”
The blowing up of Nord Stream (NS) and Nord Stream 2 (NS2) – everybody knows who did it, but the suspect cannot be named – took to the next level the two-pronged imperial project of cutting off cheap Russian energy from Europe and destroying the German economy.
From the imperial perspective, the ideal subplot is the emergence of a US-controlled Intermarium – from the Baltic and the Adriatic to the Black Sea – led by Poland, exercising some sort of new hegemony in Europe, on the heels of the Three Seas Initiative.
But as it stands, that remains a wet dream.
On the dodgy “investigation” of what really happened to NS and NS2, Sweden was cast as The Cleaner, as if this was a sequel of Quentin Tarantino’s crime thriller Pulp Fiction.
That’s why the results of the “investigation” cannot be shared with Russia. The Cleaner was there to erase any incriminating evidence.
As for the Germans, they willingly accepted the role of patsies. Berlin claimed it was sabotage, but would not dare to say by whom.
This is actually as sinister as it gets, because Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and the whole EU, know that if you really confront the Empire, in public, the Empire will strike back, manufacturing a war on European soil. This is about fear – and not fear of Russia.
The Empire simply cannot afford to lose the “garden.” And the “garden” elites with an IQ over room temperature know they are dealing with a psychopathic serial killer entity which simply cannot be appeased.
Meanwhile, the arrival of General Winter in Europe portends a socio-economic descent into a maelstrom of darkness – unimaginable only a few months ago in the supposedly “garden” of humanity, so far away from the rumbles across the “jungle.”
Well, from now on barbarism begins at home. And Europeans should thank the American “ally” for it, skillfully manipulating fearful, vassalized EU elites.
Way more dangerous though is a specter that very few are able to identify: the imminent Syrianization of Europe. That will be a direct consequence of the NATO debacle in Ukraine.
From an imperial perspective, the prospects in the Ukrainian battlefield are gloomy. Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) has seamlessly morphed into a Counter-Terror Operation (CTO): Moscow now openly characterizes Kiev as a terrorist regime.
The pain dial is incrementally going up, with surgical strikes against Ukrainian power/electricity infrastructure about to totally cripple Kiev’s economy and its military. And by December, there’s the arrival on the front lines and in the rear of a properly trained and highly motivated partial mobilization contingent.
The only question concerns the timetable. Moscow is now in the process of slowly but surely decapitating the Kiev proxy, and ultimately smashing NATO “unity.”
The process of torturing the EU economy is relentless. And the real world outside of the collective West – the Global South – is with Russia, from Africa and Latin America to West Asia and even sections of the EU.
It is Moscow – and significantly not Beijing – that is tearing apart the hegemon-coined “rules-based international order,” supported by its natural resources, the provision of food and reliable security.
And in coordination with China, Iran and major Eurasian players, Russia is working to eventually decommission all those US-controlled international organizations – as the Global South becomes virtually immune to the spread of NATO psyops.
The Syrianization of Europe
In the Ukrainian battlefield, NATO’s crusade against Russia is doomed – even as in several nodes as much as 80 percent of the fighting forces feature NATO personnel. Wunderwaffen such as HIMARS are few and far between. And depending on the result of the US mid-term elections, weaponization will dry out in 2023.
Ukraine, by the spring of 2023, may be reduced to no more than an impoverished, rump black hole. The imperial Plan A remains Afghanization: to operate an army of mercenaries capable of targeted destabilization and or/terrorist incursions into the Russian Federation.
In parallel, Europe is peppered with American military bases.
All those bases may play the role of major terror bases – very much like in Syria, in al-Tanf and the Eastern Euphrates. The US lost the long proxy war in Syria – where it instrumentalized jihadis – but still has not been expelled.
In this process of Syrianization of Europe, US military bases may become ideal centers to regiment and/or “train” squads of Eastern Europe émigrés, whose only job opportunity, apart from the drug business and organ trafficking, will be as – what else – imperial mercenaries, fighting whatever focus of civil disobedience emerges across an impoverished EU.
It goes without saying that this New Model Army will be fully sanctioned by the Brussels EUrocracy – which is merely the public relations arm of NATO.
A de-industrialized EU enmeshed into several layers of toxic intra-war, where NATO plays its time-tested role of Robocop, is the perfect Mad Max scenario juxtaposed to what would be, at least in the reveries of American Straussians/neo-cons, an island of prosperity: the US economy, the ideal destination for Global Capital, including European Capital.
The Empire will “lose” its pet project, Ukraine. But it will never accept losing the European “garden.”
Pepe Escobar is a veteran journalist, author and independent geopolitical analyst focused on Eurasia.
(The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)
Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:
Before we take a look at some of the most interesting recent developments, I think that it is important to clearly state something which needs to be repeated almost constantly: what we are witnessing today is not a war between Russia and the Ukraine, but between Russia and the united, consolidated, West. In practical terms this means that Russia is at war with the United States and NATO, the latter being no more than a docile, if ineffective, instrument for the latter. Furthermore, since some NATO countries are now playing a crucial role in the war against Russia (UK, Sweden, Poland and the Ukraine, the latter being a de facto NATO member), I submit that the best and simplest way to describe this was is to say that it is a NATO Crusade against Russia.
As for Banderastan, it is already a full NATO member state with about the same rights as all the other NATO members states besides the US: none. Right now, the so-called “Ukrainian forces” are already composed of anywhere between 40% to 80% composed of foreign fighters (depending on the importance of the location) and include plenty of actual NATO personnel. By the way, most of the ex-Soviet kit held by former WTO members has been destroyed by Russia, which poses a very thorny problem to NATO: they cannot ship more Soviet kit to Banderastan, and if they ship their own, they will not only lose it forever but the general public (or, at least, those who need to know) will know that western weapons systems are anything but a Wunderwaffe: some is very good, some okay, most of it is useless against a modern adversary. Remember the “awesome” Bayraktars? Where are they now? The same goes for all the other Wunderwaffen of course…
Why a Crusade? Many reasons, ranging from the fact that western imperialism was born with the original Crusades to the fact that, as always, the West is hating and trying to destroy Russia with a truly religious fervor, albeit a clearly satanic one (all western Crusades were satanic in inspiration, but that is a topic for another time).
By the way, understanding this has major force planning implications for Russia. First, the SMO in the Ukraine is only one special case in a much wider war which, in reality, already involves most of our planet (at least in economic and political terms). Second, while Russia has to conduct her SMO, she also has to prepare for a overt, full-scale, war with the West, possibly a nuclear one. Simply put: Russia has to keep the vast majority of her resources and capabilities ready for much larger conflict than the one we are currently witnessing. Put differently, Russia does not want to commit the same mistake as the one made by NATO when it flooded the Ukraine with so much weapon systems that it now lacks them for its own use. With this in mind, I suggest that we look at a few interesting developments:
One: is Russia using Iranian drones or not and, if yes, why?
First, let’s state the obvious: both Russia and Iran have denied that Iran had exported drones to Russia. Next, let’s state something equally obvious: while this might be true, most observers don’t seem to believe that Tehran and Moscow are being truthful here.
One major problem is that most observers make very questionable assumptions including the following. If Russia is indeed using Iranian drones, it is because:
Iranian drones are superior to Russian ones
Russia is running out of drones
So let’s address those two points.
Are Iranian drones superior to Russian ones? This question cannot be answered as such because two terms are not properly defined: the term “drone” and the term “superior”.
First, “drones” (aka UAV) range from tiny quads you can place in the palm of your hand to large, aircraft sized, and very sophisticated drones. So let’s arbitrarily decide that all drones can be placed into one of five categories: A, B, C, D and F. Next, when we compare Russian and Iranian drone capabilities, we need to avoid the “apples and oranges” logical trap and compare category by category. It might be that in categories A, B, D and F Russia has much more capable drones than Iran, but that Iran is in the lead for C type of drones.
Is that possible, even in theory?
Oh yes, absolutely! Iran has been developing very sophisticated UAV and missiles and it has used them in Iraq or the KSA with devastating effectiveness. More importantly, for the Iranian authorities, developing a very strong UAV/missile capability is a national priority and, possibly, the key to deter the AngloZionists. And while in Russia the military industrial complex has developed plenty of sophisticated drones, I would argue that before the initiation of the SMO drones were a lesser priority for Russia than for Iran. Thus is is quite possible that while Russia might lead in some types of drones, Iran might have superior capabilities in another type(s) of drones.
Then there is the issue of costs. Iranian drones are very *very* cheap, especially when compared to some much more expensive Russian equivalents.
Finally, there is the issue of availability. Even if Russia’s drone X is superior to the Iranian drone Y, that does not mean that Russia can produce enough X drones for her needs, so why not purchase much cheaper but very effective Iranian Y drones for a fraction of the cost AND with immediate delivery?
So what are we to make from the uncanny resemblance of the Russian between the Russian Geranium-2 drone vs the Iranian Shahed-136?
My advice: absolutely nothing.
Yes, they do look alike but, frankly, convergent evolution is very common in technology, especially in aerospace. In this case, both the Geranium-2 and the Sahed-136 look alike, sound alike, and generally are hard to distinguish. Can you tell a 152mm shell apart from a 155mm one? What about two shells of the same caliber, but built by different manufacturers?
So what do we know for sure? We know that Russia has dramatically increased her use of drones and that some really look Iranian. But even Iranian-looking drones might be built in Russia (with or without a license). Should an Iranian designed drone built in Russia (or a Russian designed drone built in Iran) be considered Iranian or Russian?
Last but not least – what difference does it make anyway?
We know that Iran is a very solid and trustworthy ally of Russia (I would argue by far the best Russia has right now). I know for a fact that the behind the scenes ties between Russia and Iran are numerous and deep. Of course, in the West Iran is almost as demonized as Russia, so for the Neocons to lump the two together makes for a good talking point. But we should not declare that these are all “Neocon lies” just because the Neocons are using Russia to demonize Iran and Iran to demonize Russia. If anything, I think that Iran very much deserves a public expression of gratitude and admiration by Russia. Because even if the Iranians have not sold a single drone to Russia, they are clearly and openly supporting Russia in her desire to overcome the Great Satan and create a multipolar world.
Whatever may be the case, I think that this entire Iranian drone topic is a non-issue other than I very much welcome an increase in the effective use of UAV by Russia against NATO absolutely irrespective of where these UAVs have been built or who designed them.
Did I mention that the crazies in Kiev has declared that they have a “anti-UAV dome” over Kiev (the name must be an attempt to copy/brown-nose Israel)? Here is how this all looks like:
1: the mystery UAV. 2: the Ukie anti-UAV “dome” in action. 3: the inevitable outcome
Finally, this begs the question “are the Russian lying about the Iranian drones”?
Frankly, I don’t know. But here is what I do know:
In his recent press conference Putin declared: ” There is no need for massive strikes now. Other tasks are on the agenda because I think out of the 29 targets the Defence Ministry had planned to hit, only seven were not. But now they are dealing with them gradually. There is no need for massive strikes, at least for now. As for the future, we’ll see.”
Which was immediately interpreted by the usual war-mongering 6th columnist and assorted (pseudo-) “friends of Russia” as a sign of weakness, irresolution and, of course, imminent defeat.
Now, Putin, besides being a former intelligence officer is also a jurist and he is very careful with words. So let’s take the sentence “There is no need for massive strikes now“. There are at least three very ambiguous words here: “need”, “massive” and “now”. Let’s look at them one by one:
Need: means just what it says, that there is no *need* for X. That does not mean that there is no “desire” or “rationale” or “advantage” in doing X. Putin bashers “missed” that.
Massive: well, if 200 missiles is massive, would 180 be less than massive? How about 150? 100? Of course, the Putin bashers also “missed” that.
Now: did he mean “today” or “this picosecond” or maybe “this month”? Nobody knows. And, yes, of course, the Putin bashers also “missed” that.
Besides, Putin also said “As for the future, we’ll see“. When does “the future” begin? Technically, as soon as these words were spoken!
So did Putin *lie*? No, not technically, but he was definitely “cute with words” and that was good enough for the idiots in NATO to believe that the missile strikes were over. They found out the next day that they were very mistaken, but by then it was too late.
Another example – here is what Peskov said about the Iranian drones: ““No, we have no such information. Russian hardware is being used. You know it well. It has Russian designations. All further questions can be addressed to the Defense Ministry“. Wait, what?! What “further questions”? Also, you can apply a Russian “designation” to anything, even something procured abroad. Peskov is also being “cute with words” here.
The bottom line is this: deception is a key instrument of war, but constant lies destroy your credibility. Are the Russian capable of lying? Absolutely, let’s not be naive. But, when given the option, Russian politicians prefer to be ambiguous, “cute with words” or any other expression you like. They try to lie less than NATO (which is solely and only about optics, PYSOPS, PR, propaganda, etc. etc. etc.) and they try to not be to crude about it.
So can we take Russian or Iranian denials to the bank?
I would highly advise against it.
Two: the NS1/NS2 sabotage rigmarole (aka MH17 revisited)
You got to give it to EU politicians: they are funny. Unless you live under their yoke that it. In this case, the Eurolemmings first declared that Russia would have zero access to investigation of the sabotage of NS1/NS2 (MH-17 anyone?) only to then declare that they will all investigate separately but not share results. Especially Sweden which was clearly given the “cleanup job” by Uncle Shmuel. As for the Germans, they really don’t fear ridicule: they announced that it was definitely sabotage, but nobody knows by whom. Apparently, being Uncle Shmuel’s bitch is what is expected of the comprador leaders of occupied Germany…
Check out this footage of the damage for yourself:
Even with Biden’s direct admission on record, the Eurolemmings have absolutely NO IDEA who could possibly have sabotaged NS1/NS2. At best, they will mention Russia as a possible culprit 🙂
We can expect these ridiculous and spineless losers to go “full MH17” and use all the same bag of dirty tricks (beginning, of course, with the exclusion of Russia from the investigation because… … uh… … well, Russia is evil, you know?!)
Sure, the “winter is coming”, metaphorically and literally, but for the time being the folks in the West keep themselves entertained with the usual russophobic hatred:
In reality this image shows a Serbian bridge destroyed by NATO!
Then there is this masterpiece:
Which brings us right back to this during the NATO aggression against Libya:
I guess some things never change, including the Western political discourse… That, and a very pathological obsession with sexual topics (the West is clearly the most sexually dysfunctional part of the planet right now).
Three: so where do we go from here?
First, there is going to be more of the same, that is that the West will continue to rely on terrorism as one of its main weapons against Russia. Most of you must have heard about the massacre of Russian soldiers in training by Takfiri terrorists (and we all know who runs the Takfiri terrorists wordwide!) but you probably did not hear that the Belarussian security services have prevented a number of terrorist actions in Belarus (see machine translated article about this here).
And since there are always more potential targets than resources to guard them, we can, alas, safely assume that terrorist attacks in Russia will continue. And no, Putin will not resurrect the Smersh (sorry nostalgic emo-Marxists!) and Russia will not turn into the USSR or WWII. Not because Putin does not want that (and he does definitely NOT want that), but because the people of Russia don’t want that: Russia will remain a free and open society even if the price to pay for that are regular terror attacks. Now, eventually and inevitably, the Russian society will change as the war against NATO will take many months, possibly years, and the entire Russian society will have to gradually switch over to a full “war mode” including not only the economy, but also counter-terrorism operations.
[Sidebar: this war has already profoundly changed Russia and, I would argue, for the better. The 5th column is basically dead. The Atlantic Integrationists either gone or in deep concealment. The 6th column made the max of the so-called Russian “defeats” and “imminent collapse” but right now only a really terminally dumb person can still fail to “smell the coffee” and wake up to reality. Scores of “Russian” liberals (who were very much represented in the media, entertainment, music, arts, etc.) have either emigrated (usually to Israel, Poland, the UK or one of the three Baltic statelets) or gone into a deep depression. The Russian legislature is passing law after law to make it harder to deliberately spread NATO PSYOPs and now rather than facing the support and admiration of “liberals” in Russia and abroad, doing so exposes you to fines and even incarceration. What used to be a fun lifestyle for the “Russian” liberals is gradually turning into a nightmare. The bottom line is this: wars polarize and that polarization makes it much easier to get a grasp of “who is really who”. Even a hardcore 6thy columnist like Strelkov/Girkin eventually had to stop flipping is lips and volunteered to join the Russian forces in combat. Whatever his real motives, I will say that is an honorable and courageous action which not 5th columnist or liberal has had the courage to imitate – at least so far and to my knowledge. I am pretty sure that the Russia which will emerge (victorious, of course) from this war will be a very different Russia from the Russia which fought it until now. In a terrible way this war might well be salvific for the peoples of Russia: it is, after all, a war for the very survival of the Russian civilizational realm!]
There are also a lot of rumors and “things brewing” which we should prepare for. I will just bullet point a few of them here:
Right now large NATO forces are assembling in several locations to continue the current “lives for optics” operation in which the Ukrainians exchange lives en masse for the pleasure of twitting about “strategic advances” while gaining a few square kilometers here and there.
Russian sources are claiming that some kind of unconventional attack is being prepared against Kherson and the ZNPP.
Russian sources are also claiming that NATO is concentrating artillery/missile forces for massive (?) strikes against the city of Kherson.
For these reasons, the authorities in Kherson have made it possible for the civilians who want to leave to do so and temporarily relocate to a safer location. That does, of course, NOT mean that the Russians plan to withdraw from Kherson, if only because under Russian law it is now Russian territory.
Russian missile strikes are continuing, mostly against power plants and command posts. Since “Ze” has made the posting of videos of Russian attacks illegal, only the attacks on big cities/towns are featured in the social media. The Russian attacks on military command centers are almost never recorded or shown.
The Russians are also doing “something” to Starlink and Musk (whose “proud resistance” to the Pentagon lasted less than 24 hours!) even claimed that the Russians might take the entire system down. Right now Russian interference seems to be centered around the areas near the line of contact, but that could change anytime the Russian GS decides that the time has come. If things get even worse, western UAV and AWACS will experience “technical problems” next.
In what I call “Zone B” (i.e. the free world) the US is losing one ally after another, the latest one to defect to the Russian side is, of all countries, Saudi Arabia which first told Biden to get lost over OPEC+ and which now wants to join the BRICS! Can’t say I am a big fan of the KSA, but I am all for it joining the BRICS if that is what they want.
Last but not least, is the “something’s up” feeling,
As of today, the Russians and Belorussians have created a joint force which is of great concern the the folks in Kiev and Lvov. This does not mean that Belarusian units (or individual soldiers) are about to cross the border and attack but, just as with the initial feint around Kiev, this creates a major headache for NATO planners who cannot allocate all their resources towards the lines of contact in the eastern Ukraine. And, if and when needed, this force (whose size is unclear, but appears to be significant) could, of course, be used, especially if the Hyena of Europe decides to bite off a piece of Banderastan (or Belarus!). There is overwhelming evidence that Russia is also preparing a large force for some kind of operation, but I cannot even guess where this force(s) might be used or how.
Conclusion: a planet divided for the foreseeable future
What we are seeing is the creation of two parts of our planet: the AngloZionist Hegemony (in which only the USA and Israel have agency, the rest are colonies, occupied countries, volunteer slaves, etc.) and the Multipolar Free World. While the two blocks are not technically at war with each other, in reality they already very much are. Russia and Iran are bearing most of the military burden while other free countries quietly try to either stay out and keep a low profile or, even more quietly, assist China and rest of the Multipolar Free World to prevail economically. Of course, the AngloZionist Hegemony is using every means it has to subvert not only Russia, but also China, Iran and any other country daring to declare even a modicum of sovereignty.
The eventual and inevitable outcome of this confrontation is not in doubt, at least not to those who are aware of reality. It is not the outcome which I fear (in fact I await it with great anticipation!) but the potentially enormous costs of defeating the West’s last Crusade (last time Russia lost 27 million people, most of them innocent civilians, and that did not even do the full job – hence today’s war). I will never stop repeating that while most of the US and NATO forces are a sad joke, the US nuclear triad and the USN’s submarine force are both still world class and extremely dangerous and capable (and US SSNs come with not only anti-submarine and anti-surface capabilities, but also with land-attack missiles).
This is why it is absolutely crucial for Russia to turn up the pain dial steadily but SLOWLY.
Those dimwits who constantly advocate for “firm Russian actions” and simply “hit them hard!” are clueless civilians from countries who never won a real war adn who have no idea whatsoever about modern warfare or about the immense risks their warmongering hysterics create for our entire planet. I can sincerely say that I thank God that Putin is a very careful type who fully understands that there are no “quickfix solutions” to denazifying and demilitarizing the AngloZionist Hegemony.
And yes, Russia will continue to unilaterally and gradually rotating up the pain dial, and Russia will do so without feeling the need to seek approval from those who have never won a war but who believe that wars are won by “showing toughness”.
Having failed in preserving the unipolar order, the west will resort to Plan B – reviving a bipolar world based on the ‘civilized’ west and the ‘barbarian’ rest.
By the late 1990s, it was clear that a China-led Asia would be the dominant economic, technological and military power of the 21st century.
The late Polish-American diplomat and political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled out in 1997 that the way to control Asian growth, and China’s in particular, was to control global energy reserves.
The attacks on 11 September 2001 provided the “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” to set military intervention plans in motion. As noted by US General Wesley Clark, “in addition to Afghanistan, we’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”
Energy reserves of these countries – in addition to those already controlled by the west – would result in western control over 60 percent of global gas reserves and 70 percent of global oil reserves.
However, the west’s direct military intervention wars failed, and subsequent proxy wars using assorted Al Qaeda-affiliated Islamists failed as well.
Rise of the ‘RIC’
In the two decades since Brzezinski laid out his strategy and the west immersed itself in failed wars, the Eurasian sovereignist core of Russia, Iran, and China (RIC) were heavily focused on national development in all arenas, including the economic, technological and military fields, and physical and social infrastructure development.
By 2018, it was clear that plans for western control of global energy reserves had failed and that the RIC had overtaken the west in many, if not most, of the aforementioned sectors.
As a result, the RIC were able to project power, protecting sovereign nations from western interventionism in West Asia, Central Asia, South America and Africa. In Iran’s case this also involved a direct military response against US forces, following the assassination of the late General Qassem Soleimani. Making matters worse, the gap between the west and the RIC is widening, with little chance for the former to catch up.
The impossibility of sustaining western global hegemony had become evident amid continuous erosion of western power and global influence, which coincide with a commensurate expansion of RIC global influence, both of which necessitated an alternative strategy: a Plan B, as it were.
Plan B: Securing the realm
In view of the irreversible widening of this gap, and the growing global influence of the RIC, the only feasible strategy for the west would be to ‘terminate the competition’ by splitting the world into two regions, one in which the west has ironclad control, where western “rules” reign, and is divorced from the RIC-influenced region.
The current geostrategy of the west is the imposition of an Iron Curtain with the inclusion of as many resource rich nations as possible. Only by realizing the west’s actual geostrategic objective is it possible to understand the reason behind its apparently self-defeating actions, specifically:
Increasing tensions with China and Iran whilst engaged in a proxy war with Russia.
While the world is fixated on the conflict in Ukraine, the geostrategic objective of the west is being steadily advanced.
Sanctions: the catalyst of crises and coercion
The widely accepted explanation is that the west imposed draconian sanctions with the expectation that it would turn the ruble into “rubble,” create a run on banks, crash the Russian economy, weaken President Vladimir Putin’s grip on power, and pave the way for a more amenable president to replace him.
None of these expectations materialized. On the contrary, the ruble strengthened against the dollar and the euro, and the Russian economy is faring better than most western economies, which are witnessing record inflation and recessionary indicators. To add insult to injury, Putin’s popularity has soared while those of his western counterparts are hitting record lows.
The west’s after-the-fact explanation that sanctions, and their repercussions, were not well thought out, do not hold water.
Often overlooked though, has been the devastating impact of these sanctions on the Global South. US economist Michael Hudson argues that the Ukraine war is merely a catalyst to impose sanctions that would result in global food and energy crises – allowing the US to coerce the Global South to be “with us or against us.”
Indeed the impact of these crises are compounded by the earlier detrimental impact of Covid lockdowns. Food, energy and economic crises are further exasperated by the US Federal Reserve raising interest rates which directly impact the debt servicing ability of Global South countries, placing them on the edge of bankruptcy and at the mercy of the western-controlled World Bank and International Monetary Fund — the instruments for effectively locking these nations within the western realm.
Thus, despite the very negative impact of sanctions on western countries, these nevertheless fit perfectly with the strategic objective of locking in as many Global South countries within the western sphere of influence.
Tensions with China and Iran:
Driving a wedge between Eurasian powers has been an axiom of western geostrategy, as expressed eloquently by Brzezinski: “The three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are:
to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals,
to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and
to keep the barbarians from coming together.”
In this regard, raising tensions with Beijing and Tehran, while the west is involved in a proxy war with Russia, appears contradictory.
However it starts to make more rational sense when contextualizing the strategy as one aiming to establish an “Iron Curtain” that separates the world into two: one is the western Realm, and the other is Brzezinski’s ‘Barbaria,’ at the core of which are the RIC.
Two worlds
The western realm will continue on its path of neoliberalism. Yet due to significantly smaller populations and resources under its control, it will be significantly impoverished compared to present, necessitating imposition of police states for which Covid-19 lockdowns provide a glimpse into the socio-political future of these states.
Global South countries under the western realm will continue down a path of increased poverty, requiring management by dictatorial governments. Political turbulence is expected as a result of deteriorating socioeconomic conditions.
‘Barbaria,’ as reflected in the very diverse political and economic models of the RIC, will have a variety of development models, reflecting the civilizational diversity within this realm and the mutually beneficial cooperation which currently exists between the RICs, and between the RIC and others.
What about the Global South?
Facing the perfect storm of food, energy, inflation and debt servicing crises, many Global South countries will be in a very weak position and may be readily coerced into joining the western realm. This will be facilitated by the fact that their economic, and consequently, political elites, have their interests aligned with the western financial construct – and will thus wholeheartedly embrace joining the west.
The inability of west to provide effective solutions to these crises, coupled with their colonial past, will make joining Barbaria more attractive. This can be further influenced by the RIC providing support during this crisis period.
Russia has already offered to assist in the provision of food to Afghanistan and African countries, while Iran notably provided gasoline to Venezuela during its fuel crisis. Meanwhile, China has a successful track record of infrastructure development in Global South countries and is spearheading the world’s most ambitious connectivity project, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
As Russian economist and Minister of Integration for the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) Sergey Glazyev already hinted when describing the emerging alternative global financial network: “Countries of the Global South can be full participants of the new system regardless of their accumulated debts in dollars, euro, pound, and yen. Even if they were to default on their obligations in those currencies, this would have no bearing on their credit rating in the new financial system.”
How many Global South nations can the western realm realistically expect to hold onto when Barbaria offers a clean slate, with zero debt?
Where does this leave West Asia?
The Axis of Resistance will be further aligned with Barbaria; however, political elites in Iraq and Lebanon favor the western realm. Thus, a politically turbulent period is expected in such countries. Due to the inability of west to offer economic solutions, coupled with the clout of local Resistance parties in these countries, the end game for Iraq and Lebanon is ultimately to join Barbaria, along with the de-facto government of Yemen.
Oil sheikhdoms of the Gulf are creations of the west and therefore belong in the western realm. However due to events of the past two decades, this may not necessarily be where they all line up. The west’s debacles in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen have convinced the sheikhdoms that the west has lost its military edge, and is no longer able to offer long term protection.
Furthermore, unlike the west, Barbaria has a track record of not directly meddling in the internal affairs of nations, a factor of significance for the sheikhdoms. Recent diplomatic tensions with the west have been evidenced by Saudi and UAE leaders rejecting the oil production demands of the US administration – an unprecedented development. If offered convincing protection by Barbaria, oil sheikhdoms may decide to join it.
End of an Era
Retrenchment of the west marks the end of a long era of western expansionism and oppression. Some date this era back six centuries to the start of European colonization in the fifteenth century. Others date it even further back to the Great Schism and the subsequent Crusades.
The latter are supported by a statement attributed to British Field Marshal Edmund Allenby on entering Jerusalem in 1917: “only now have the crusades ended,”and the fact that church bells chimed worldwide in celebration of the occupation of Jerusalem.
During this era, hundreds of millions all over the globe were massacred, civilizations were wiped out, billions suffered and still suffer. To state that we are living in epochal times is a gross understatement.
Naturally the end of such an era cannot happen peacefully; the wars of the past 30 years are witness to this.
The regression of western initiated wars from direct military intervention (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq) to wars by proxy (Syria, Iraq, Ukraine) augurs well, as it reflects the realization by the west that it is no match militarily to the RIC. Had there been any lingering doubts, the war in Ukraine has put them to rest. Thus it can be concluded that the worst is over.
Internal instability in some Global South countries will exist in the near future; a consequence of the struggle between diverging interests of populations and neoliberal ruling elites. Decline and impoverishment of the west vs. the rise of RIC will favour the resolving these struggles in favour of the peoples and alignment with RIC.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Palestine remains a burning issue for the Muslims of the world.
The modern epic of Palestine
The Palestinian cause: the most important cause of the Islamic world
The Palestinian cause is the most important cause in Islam. No other international issue in the world of Islam is more important than the issue of Palestine because the domination of the occupiers of Palestine and Al-Quds over this part of the Islamic Ummah is the source of many of the weaknesses and problems in the world of Islam.
Bait Al-Maqdis The main pivot of the Al-Aqsa Intifada is Bait Al-Maqdis
In other words, the spark that provoked the anger of the Palestinian people was the Zionists’ affront to the Al-Aqsa mosque in occupied Al-Quds. Having realized their great mission to safeguard the sanctity of one of the most sacred Islamic sites, the Palestinian people entered the arena of struggle against the Zionists.
Occupation of Palestine: A long-held Western wish
Certain western powers have always wished to occupy Palestine and holy Al-Quds and the fact that they imposed the long Crusades on Muslims is a clear sign of their greed for this holy land. After the Allied Powers defeated the Ottomans and entered Bait Al-Maqdis, some of their commanders said, “Today the Crusades came to an end!”
Palestinian uprising ruined all Israeli calculations
The second point that is very important is that this uprising has ruined all calculations of this usurping Zionist regime. This is because their calculations were based on the assumption that over time the Palestinian people would lose the energy and determination to fight back after those early pressures and after the exile of more than half the population of Palestine.
“Israel’s” defeat in the 33-day and 22-day wars: Signs of steep decline
Two important events are “Israel’s” unbelievable military and political defeat against the Lebanese Islamic Resistance in the 33-day war in Lebanon -in the year 1427 of the Islamic calendar- and the humiliating defeat of the Zionist regime in the 22-day war on the people and the legitimate government of Palestine in Gaza.
Resistance of the people of Palestine: an obstacle in the way of Israel:
Of course, the Palestinian nation is powerful: it has proven this.
The Palestinian nation has proven that it has the power to resist. It has proven that it is highly motivated and that it will undoubtedly break the teeth of the brutal and blood-thirsty aggressor.
With its resistance and steadfastness, the Palestinian nation has created a big and insoluble problem for the fake and usurping Zionist regime, a problem that this fake “state” had not faced over the past 50 years. The pressure that the Zionists and their supporters exert on the oppressed people of Palestine is because their movement and their uprising have created such a problem for global arrogance and colonialism that all calculations have been ruined.
The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.
In pursuit of its declared aim to create a ‘New Middle East’, it was Washington that masterminded the purge of Christians from the region, under the guise of its pseudo-Christian ‘crusade’ of the 21st century.
Many sources tell of the recent purge of Christians from the Middle East. Members of the oldest Christian communities themselves wrote of the “ethnic cleansing [of] Assyrians from Iraq”, soon after the US invasion of 2003. Later, the terrorist group ISIS was blamed.
In 2015, Pope Francis demanded an immediate end to the “genocide” of Christians taking place in the Middle East. In 2018, he repeated this call to ROACO, a group assisting the Eastern Churches, speaking of the risk of “eliminating Christians” from the Middle East and of the “great sin of war”. Yet he did not point his finger at any particular state or group responsible; a failure for which he was chastised by the Syrian Priest Father Elias Zahlawi.
The western war media has blamed everyone from ISIS to Hamas to Muslims in general for the steady expulsion of Christians from Palestine, Iraq, and Syria. But all those claims miss the mark. The USA and its collaborators, including Australia, are the prime movers of this great crime.
Western liberal society has also played a role, priding itself on giving refuge to ‘persecuted minorities’, while ignoring responsibility for the wars which drive these refugees.
The aims of Washington’s ‘crusade’, initially said to be against ‘terrorism’, were made clear in subsequent years. The growing cluster of wars was part of a greater project which former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in 2005 and 2006, called the ‘creative chaos’ involved in the ‘birth pangs’ of Washington’s vision of a ‘New Middle East’. That meant “taking out” multiple independent states, which General Wesley Clarke said are, after Afghanistan, “Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran.”
Those who focus only on the ISIS purges, or claim some ‘organic’ Muslim reaction to the various US invasions and proxy wars, miss the directing hand of Washington. That has been the key driver behind the catastrophe which has befallen the entire region and in particular the world’s oldest Christian communities in several West Asian countries.
As ‘fighting ISIS’ became the main false pretext for occupying both Iraq and Syria, let’s take a look first at the evidence of US responsibility for ISIS, before moving to the purge of Christians in Palestine, Iraq, and Syria.
Washington’s responsibility for ISIS
In early 2007, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote of ‘the redirection’ in US policy, which would focus on using “moderate Sunni” Muslim states, such as Saudi Arabia, to counter the influence of Shia Muslim Iran. The sectarian conflict was at the core of the “creative chaos” idea.
ISIS was created over 2004-05 in Iraq as AQI or ISI, by the Saudis at Washington’s direction, to inflame sectarian violence and in particular to keep apart the (post-Saddam Hussein) Shia dominated governments of Iraq and Iran. This terrorist group committed shocking sectarian atrocities against Iraqi civilians, especially Shia Muslims. By 2007, US army papers showed that the largest group of foreign ISI/AQI fighters in Iraq had come from Saudi Arabia.
In August 2012, US intelligence agency DIA predicted that a “salafist principality in eastern Syria” was likely, as extremist forces dominated the insurgency, and that was “exactly” what the US wanted, so as “to isolate the Syrian regime” in Damascus.
The resurgence of ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, over 2012-2017, followed the failure of other proxies to overthrow the Damascus government and Washington’s fear of the growing ties between Damascus, Baghdad, and Tehran, which faced common security threats.
Practicing the old ‘divide and rule’, Washington was determined to maintain barriers between Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Yet it was the combined forces of these three neighbors that eventually drove ISIS out of major cities and towns. Former Secretary of State John Kerry made the partial admission that Washington watched as the terror group grew, hoping it could be managed – while ISIS took over the cities of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa and Palmyra in Syria.
By late 2014, senior US officials including Vice President Biden and head of the US Military General Martin Dempsey were admitting that their ‘major allies’ in the region had been arming and funding all the extremist groups in Syria, including the UN Security Council proscribed groups Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS, in attempts to overthrow the Syrian government. Dempsey acknowledged that “major Arab allies” fund ISIS, while Biden named Turkey, the Saudis, and the Emiratis as having poured “hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons” into “anyone who would fight against Assad.” It was disingenuous for Biden and Dempsey to suggest that their ‘major allies’ would take such a course independently.
Despite these admissions, and despite the successful Iran-Iraq-Syria purge of ISIS announced by Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in November 2017, US direct military intervention in both Iraq and Syria was maintained, under the pretext of “fighting ISIS”.
None of Palestine’s Christians are Israeli
The only Christian ‘residents’ (“Israel” will not recognize them as ‘citizens’) in the Israeli colony are Palestinians, and they are subject to the same ethnic cleansing as their majority Muslim brethren. Washington and its NATO allies occasionally complain about the expanding Israeli ‘settlements’ in Palestine, but in practice, Washington is the colony’s major foreign funder while the USA, Germany, and some other Europeans are “Israel’s” main weapons providers.
Christians are now a very small minority in occupied Palestine, but they were once many more, at least in certain areas. One church source put Christians at 11% of Palestine, at the end of the Ottoman era in 1922. Yet Ramzy Baroud says “the most optimistic estimates” today have Palestinian Christians at less than 2% of occupied Palestine.
Some declines have been quite recent. The Christian population of “Bethlehem” in 2020 was only 22% but was said to have been much more just ten years earlier. Other villages have seen big losses. In Beit Jala, the Christian majority fell from 99% to 61%; in Beit Sahour, from 81% to 65%. A study by Dar Al-Kalima University found that the sharp decline of Christians in Beit Jala was due to “the pressure of Israeli occupation … discriminatory policies, arbitrary arrests, confiscation of lands [which] added to the general sense of hopelessness among Palestinian Christians.”
The Israeli media blamed the Islamic resistance party ‘Hamas’ for the decline of Christians in Gaza. But Palestinian Christians blame “Israel”. The Syrian priest Father Zahlawi posed this question to Pope Francis, “If you want to suggest that the Muslims are the ones who force Christians to leave ‘the land they love’ … how can you explain their emigration at a worrisome rate since the establishment of “Israel” while they [Christians] throughout hundreds of years, lived … side by side with the Muslims?”
No doubt the atrocities committed against Palestinian youth in “Bethlehem” have contributed to the purge in that town. In Dheisheh ‘camp’, now an outer suburb of “Bethlehem”, a young third-generation refugee told this writer in early 2018 that the Israeli southern command had a declared practice of systemically shooting Palestinian youth in the legs and knees, to cripple them. Many published accounts support his story. It was and is a systematic campaign against both Muslim and Christian Palestinians.
Purges in Iraq after the 2003 invasion
While Iraqis feared Saddam Hussein, many Christians also feared his removal, as his government had been “largely tolerant of their faith and included high-ranking Christians”. By late 2004, that generalized fear persisted, with Christians believing they were “high on the target list”. They were only 3% of the Iraqi population but their community was “one of the oldest in the Middle East … [and had] long played an important role in Iraqi politics, society and the economy”.
Just one year after the illegal US invasion of March 2003, Islamic extremists were reported to have bombed many Iraqi churches, with 59 Assyrian churches bombed; “40 in Baghdad, 13 in Mosul, 5 in Kirkuk, and 1 in Ramadi”. This was around the time al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI, later ISI, and later still ISIS) began its operations.
A 2007 report (revised in 2017) spoke of the “incipient genocide” of Iraqi Assyrians, most of whom were Christians. By then, 118 churches were said to have been attacked or bombed. The report said that “Assyrians comprised 8% (1.5 million) of the Iraqi population in April of 2003. Since then, 50% have fled the country.” By 2007, there were more than 1.2 million Iraqi refugees in neighboring Syria.
The Assyrian report blamed extremist Muslims but also the newly empowered Kurdish administrations. “Kurdish authorities denied foreign reconstruction assistance for Assyrian communities and used public works projects to divert water and other vital resources from Assyrian to Kurdish communities. Kurdish forces blockaded Assyrian villages. Children were kidnapped and forcibly transferred to Kurdish families.”
As early as the 1970s, Washington had enlisted the support of Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq, at first as a counterweight to Saddam Hussein (who was also a US collaborator in the 1970s and 1980s) and later as a tool to divide and weaken any government in Baghdad. “Israel” has also had a long-standing presence in Iraqi Kurdistan, “more conspicuous” in recent years.
The strong 2014 resurgence of ISIS in Iraq, after it had been reactivated and rebadged to help divide both Iraq and Syria, renewed these pressures. A 2015 report wrote that while ISIS had “killed Sunni and Shia Muslims, they are clearly engaged in a systematic campaign to rid Iraq of non-Muslims and ethnic minority communities, including Assyrian Christians”. The terror group, essentially an instrument of Washington through the Saudis, gave the Christians in Mosul the ‘options’ of conversion to Islam, paying a religious levy, or death. Many fled.
When the second wave of ISIS attacks hit Iraq in 2014, the terror group seized Mosul and drove thousands of Christians from that large city and from the nearby smaller city of Qaraqosh, near the ruins of ancient Nimrod and Nineveh. Most of those Assyrians fled north into the Kurdistan region but many others left the country. The US had warned of a “humanitarian catastrophe’ from the ISIS attacks but was more concerned with dismembering the Iraqi and Syrian states.
Before ISIS Mosul had more than 15,000 Christians; by mid-2019 only 40 had returned. A Christian report of 2019 spoke of the “genocide” of Christians and Yazidis, and of a 15-year climate of violence and turmoil, following the US invasion. Sargon Donabed’s book ‘Reforging a Forgotten History’, concludes that the 1.4 million Iraqi Christians in 2005 had been almost halved to 750,000, by 2014.
Kurdish separatists in Iraq and Syria, backed by the US war coalition, added to the pressures on Assyrian and other Christian communities. After the sectarian Islamists, mostly recruited by the Persian Gulf monarchies, Kurdish separatists became Washington’s second tool to divide and weaken those independent states. Indeed in north Iraq, the notion of a ‘second [Kurdish] Israel’ was widely touted.
Washington was thus the prime mover and mastermind of the demise of Iraq’s Christians, by invading Iraq, destroying the relative protection which had been offered to Christians; then destabilizing new Baghdad administrations with terror through the Saudi-styled sectarian Islamist creations (AQI/ISI and later ISIS), which purged Christians and other minorities; and finally by backing a Kurdish controlled northern zone, which further purged indigenous Christians and in particular Assyrians. That operation was later ported into NE Syria, where Assyrians and Armenians had fled a century back, seeking refuge from the massacres of the Ottoman Empire.
Note: Part 2 of the essay will be published next Tuesday
The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.
Once upon a time in Anatolia, in the late 13th century a Turkic principality – one of many shaped in the wake of the Mongol invasion of the 1240s – consigned the Seljuk Turks to the past and emerged as the Ottoman emirate. It was named after its founder, Osman I.
By the middle of the 15th century, the time of the game-changing conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmet II, the expanding Ottoman empire had absorbed virtually all its neighboring Turkic emirates.
And by the start of the 16th century, what sprang up was a multi-religious and multi-ethnic empire that – pragmatic and tolerant – ruled for four centuries over the Balkans, Anatolia and Southwest Asia.
Talk about a major historical riddle: How did a small principality in the western fringe of what used to be known as Asia Minor turn into what could arguably be defined as Islam’s most important empire? The key to unlocking the riddle may be offered by Sultan Selim I.
God’s Shadow, which in its original English edition (Faber & Faber) is subtitled The Ottoman Sultan Who Shaped the Modern World, may reveal that author Alan Mikhail, chair of the Department of History at Yale, is uniquely qualified to argue the case.
Mehmet II, who with his endless obsession and cunning extinguished the Byzantine empire on the fateful May 29, 1453, when he was only 21, was a larger-than-life figure for peoples of the Mediterranean, the Balkans and Asia Minor.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Left) during an April 17, 2017, visit to the tomb of Yavuz Sultan Selim, a sultan of the former Ottoman Empire 1512-1520, in Istanbul, a day after Erdogan’s victory in a national referendum. Photo : AFP / Yasin Bulbul / Turkish Presidential Press Office
He bridged Europe and Asia. He refashioned Constantinople, renamed Istanbul, into the capital of the sprawling empire. He lorded over the silk roads from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. The Fatih (“Conqueror”) assumed mythical proportions east and west – and even branded himself Caesar, heir to Byzantine emperors.
Mehmet II conquered the Balkans in the 1460s, finished off with Genoese trading colonies in Crimea and imposed vassalage over the Crimean Tatar Khanate in 1478. That meant, in practice, turning the Black Sea into a virtual Ottoman lake.
Author Mikhail stresses right at the start that the Ottoman Empire was the most powerful state on earth – more powerful than the Ming dynasty, not to mention the Safavids – for quite some time. It was the largest empire in the Mediterranean since ancient Rome and “the most enduring” in the history of Islam.
Then he sets the crux of the – explosive – thesis he will develop in detail: “It was the Ottoman monopoly of trade routes with the East, combined with their military prowess on land and on sea, that pushed Spain and Portugal out of the Mediterranean, forcing merchants and sailors from these 15th-century kingdoms to become global explorers as they risked treacherous voyages across oceans and around continents – all to avoid the Ottomans.”
This thesis will be extremely unpalatable to a hegemonic (at least for the past 150 years) West, now confronted with its turbulent decline. Mikhail does his best to show how, “from China to Mexico, the Ottoman empire shaped the known world at the turn of the 16th century.”
Obviously ideological, military and economic competition with the Spanish and Italian states – and then Russia, China and other Islamic states – was no holds barred. Still, Mikhail relishes showing how Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Montezuma, Luther, Tamerlan – one and all “calibrated their actions and defined their very existence in reaction to the reach and grasp of Ottoman power.”
Christopher Columbus taking leave of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon before setting out on his first voyage to the New World, August 8, 1492. Photo: AFP / Ann Ronan Picture Library
Geoeconomic superpower
It takes a lot of balls for a historian employed by an elite American university to offer a self-described “revolutionary” narrative on the role of Islam and the Ottomans in shaping not only the Old World, but also the New World. Mikhail is fully aware of how this will come as “a bitter pill for many in the West.”
Exit Muslims as the “terrorist.” Exit “the rise of the West.” Enter the Ottomans as a civilizing power. Mikhail is adamant: The practice “since the Industrial Revolution and the so-called glories of the 19th century” of stretching European primacy back to Columbus “is a historical absurdity.” The Ottoman empire “struck fear into the world for centuries before it earned its derogatory 19th-century sobriquet, ‘the sick man of Europe.’”
The fact is that, for all its setbacks, the Ottoman Empire – in over 600 years of history – remained the hegemon in the Middle East and one of the most important states in Europe, Africa and Asia until World War I. From 1453 up to the 19th century, the Ottomans remained “at the center of global politics, economics and war.”
Just imagine. Ottoman armies ruled over vast swaths of Europe, Africa and Asia; the most crucial Silk and non-Silk trade corridors; key city hubs along the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. They ruled over Damascus, Istanbul, Cairo, Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina. That’s a long way from their humble beginnings as sheepherders in desolate trails across Central Asia.
And then there’s the ultimate badass: Sultan Selim.
Mikhail spends a great deal of his narrative carefully setting the stage for the eruption of the quintessentially Machiavellian Selim, even before he became Sultan in 1512. Still in Trabzon, in the Black Sea, as provincial governor, consolidating the imperial forces in the East, by 1492 Selim was fully aware how the alliance between Istanbul and Cairo conditioned European trade in what US neo-cons not long ago called the “Greater Middle East.”
The Ottomans and the Mamluks – whom Selim would later destroy as Sultan – controlled all access to the East from the Mediterranean. This geoeconomic fact by itself destroys the fable of European ascendancy during the Renaissance and the much-lauded “Age of Exploration”; it was all about Ottoman control of trade and commerce.
If anyone in Europe wanted to trade with China and India, they would have to adjust to the Ottoman’s “my way or the highway.” The Venetians tried, and it didn’t work. Genoese Columbus went full highway. Mikhail relishes nothing more than showing how the voyages of Columbus, in so many ways, “were a response to the power of the Ottomans.” They were “the political force that shaped Columbus and his generation more than any other.”
Things get positively heavy metal when Columbus is depicted as a Christian jihadi, as “he used the notion of a global civilizational war between Christendom and Islam to push his case for the Atlantic voyage.” Queen Isabella ended up buying it.
And then it all went downhill, in a literally bloody way, as “the vocabulary of war with Islam became the language of the Spanish conquest in the Americas.” The West conveniently forgets that all indigenous peoples were required (Mikhail’s own italics) to acknowledge that the Catholic Church was the universal power and that their own belief systems were absolutely inferior.
From Selim to Erdogan
Machiavelli was a huge fan of the Ottomans, whom he admired and feared. He was particularly impressed by Selim’s strategic acumen, always prevailing over nearly impossible odds. Machiavelli finished The Prince in the exact same year – 1513 – when Selim eliminated his half-brothers to finally secure the Sultanate, which he had conquered in 1512.
Selim started with a bang – with no less than an economic blockade against the Safavids, outlawing the export of Persian silk from the Ottoman empire. (That trade had been how the Iranians reached the Eastern Mediterranean and the lucrative European markets.
Selim casually hanging out with crocodiles in Egypt. Photo: Miniature included in the book
Selim casually hanging out with crocodiles in Egypt. Photo: Miniature included in the book
Selim’s victory over the Safavids in the Battle of Chaldiran was intertwined with something immensely eventful; the Portuguese capture of ultra-strategic Hormuz in 1515. That was the first European possession in the Persian Gulf. And what a prize: The Portuguese would now have control over shipping to and from the Persian Gulf, as well as a key hub linking to their new colonies on India’s west coast.
After the battle between Christians and Muslims crossed the Atlantic, the stage was set for the next chapter: Ottomans and Portuguese fighting for global power in the Indian Ocean.
Selim was on a roll. First he took Syria – incorporating legendary Damascus and Aleppo. Then he smashed the Mamluks – and that meant not only Cairo but also Jerusalem, Mecca, Medina and even Yemen, with its strategic access to the Indian Ocean and infinite possibilities for Ottoman commerce, starting with a monopoly on the silk trade.
The Selim Sultanate lasted only 8 years, from 1512 to 1520 – with geopolitical tectonic plates moving non-stop. Luther plunged Christianity into a religious civil war. The Ottomans controlled more territory around the Mediterranean than any other power. The European imperial drive hit the Indian Ocean. And then there was the ultimate theological challenge presented by the ultimate Other: Native Americans, north and south. They could not possibly be part of “God’s creation.”
When he died in 1520, Selim – sultan and also caliph – thought that being the ruler of the world’s largest empire was a given. He was, indeed, “God’s shadow on Earth.”
By the end of the last chapter in the book, “American Selim,” Mikhail again tackles the most burning question: why (his italics) Columbus had to cross the Atlantic. In a nutshell: “Hoping for an alliance with the Grand Khan of the East, he aimed to retake Jerusalem and destroy Islam; more prosaically, his voyages promised an end-run around the trade monopolies of the Ottomans and the Mamluks.”
After Columbus arrived in the Americas, Europeans inevitably filtered their experiences “through the lens of their wars with Muslims” and engaged “in a new version of their very old Crusades, a new kind of Catholic jihad.” Nevertheless, “Islam would continue to forge the histories of both Europe and the New World and the relationship between the two.”
After so much drama, Mikhail and the book’s editors still manage to present an outstanding image in the next before the last page: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ceremoniously staring at Selim’s tomb in Istanbul in 2017, after winning a constitutional referendum that expanded his powers enormously.
Like Machiavelli, Erdogan is mesmerized by Selim. But, unlike Machiavelli, he does not fear him; he wants to emulate him. What – weaponized – imperial dreams still lurk in the mind of the neo-Ottoman sultan?
العلمانية التي ظهرت كنظام سياسي وعقد اجتماعي للدولة الأوروبية المعاصرة، هي منتج سياسي وقانوني لثقافة أعمق نهضت على أكتاف الثورة الصناعيّة وتجسّدت في القرنين الثامن عشر والتاسع عشر بثورة العقل والمنطق. وما عُرف بعصر التنوير الذي قاده عمالقة بحجم فولتير وروسو ومونتسكيو، وتبلورت شعاراتها السياسية بالحرية والأخاء والمساواة في الثورة الفرنسية، بينما تبلورت فلسفته العميقة بالاحتكام للعقل، وكانت قطيعة مع تاريخ معاكس مثلته محاكم التفتيش الكاثوليكية التي دفع فيلسوف كبير مثل برونو وعلماء كبار مثل كوبرنيكوس وجاليلو ثمناً باهظاً لها بتهمة الهرطقة على قاعدة تحريم الاحتكام للعقل والعلم، بينما سياسياً واجتماعياً طورد الإصلاحيون باسم التبرؤ من البدع كما حدث مع الفيلسوف ميشال سيرفيه الذي أحرق حياً في جنيف بتهمة رفض عقيدة التثليث، فيما شكلت جرائمها بحق المسلمين في الأندلس أبرز ما حمله سجلها التاريخي تحت عنوان فحص الولاء لله، وشكلت فكرياً وثقافياً وجهاً من وجوه استمرار الحملات الصليبية.
–
في ما يشبه استعادة مناخات الحروب الصليبية يتبادل الرئيسان الفرنسي والتركي عبثاً بالعقائد والعواطف والانفعالات المنبثقة عنها، حيث يصب كل منهما من طرفه وفي البيئة التي يخاطبها زيتاً على نار حرب عبثية، لا يتورّع فيها الرئيس الفرنسي امانويل ماكرون عن التحدث عن أزمة في الإسلام، وإرهاب إسلامي، وفاشية إسلامية، أملاً بأن يتزعم جبهة تضم العلمانيين بداعي الدفاع عن حرية التعبير في شقها المتصل بالتغطية على ما يطال المقدسات الإسلامية، وتضم المتطرفين المسيحيين، الذين لا يخفون ضيقهم من تنامي حضور وتعداد المسلمين في فرنسا خصوصاً وأوروبا عموماً، وإلى الفريقين تضم اليمين الوطني الرافض لتكاثر المهاجرين من البلاد الإسلامية، أملاً بأن يشكل هذا الثلاثي مصدر زعامة تشبه زعامات بناها قادة الحروب الصليبية، بينما يسعى الرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان، وفي ظل نزاع مصلحي بين الدولتين الفرنسية والتركية، لقيادة جبهة تضم الجاليات الإسلامية المقهورة تحت ظلم سياسات عنصرية في أوروبا، وتضم التنظيمات الإرهابية التكفيرية التي تشغّلها تركيا، وكانت فرنسا شريكها في التشغيل طوال سنوات الحرب على سورية، وتضم ثالثاً الشعوب العربية من المسلمين التي تسمع بصعوبة كلاماً منخفض الصوت لحكوماتها الواقعة تحت تبعية ذليلة لحكومات الغرب، فتعجز عن التجرؤ لمخاطبة الحكومات الغربية، والرئيس الفرنسي في المقدمة بلغة شجاعة تنتقد وتصحح وتعترض. وهذه الحكومات التابعة هي شريك لحكومات فرنسا وأوروبا في رعاية الجماعات الإرهابية وتشجيع الفكر التكفيري، لكن بغرض استعمال نتاج هذه الرعاية في ليبيا وسورية وليس في أوروبا.
–
في هذا القحط الفكري، والانفلات القاتل للعصبيّات، يخرج رجل دين معمّم من أتباع الرسول وعشاقه ليقود الدعوة للتعقل وتحمّل المسؤولية، ووضع النقاط على الحروف، مستعيداً المعاني العميقة لشعارات الثورة الفرنسية ودعوات روسو وفولتير، حيث الحرية هي الاحترام العميق لحرية المعتقد. وهو في الأولوية معتقد الأقلية والضعفاء والمقهورين، والأخاء هو الترفّع عن منطق التمييز العنصري على اساس الدين والعرق واللون والجنس، والمساواة هي نزاهة تطبيق معيار المحاكمة العقلية للمفاهيم قبل أن تكون المساواة أمام القانون، حيث لا يستوي نص تحريم الحرية والعقل تحت شعار معاداة السامية، ولو التزما كل التحفظ العلمي والضوابط الأخلاقية، وتطلق حرية بث الكراهيّة، ولو تمت بصورة عبثية تستخف بالضوابط الأخلاقية والقيمية للأخوة الإنسانية، تحت شعار حرية التعبير، فجادل رجل الدين المعمم، بلغة عصر التنوير كوريث لمنجزات الحضارة الإنسانية، من يفترض أنه الوصي على تنفيذ منتجاتها من الموقع الدستوري والسياسي، بعدما ارتضى أن يتحول إلى قائد جيش في الحرب الصليبية أو رئيس غرفة من غرف محاكم تفتيش.
–
كلام السيد حسن نصرلله في ما تشهده علاقة المسلمين والجاليات الإسلامية بالقضايا المثارة على مساحة أوروبا من وحي قضية الرسوم المسيئة للرسول والجرائم الإرهابية المتذرّعة بها، مرافعة فلسفية عقلانية تستعيد روح عصر التنوير والاحتكام للعقل، والحل الذي تبنّاه ختاماً لمرافعته، مستعيداً مقترح الأزهر بتشريع عالمي لتحريم النيل من المقدسات، حجر متعدد الأهداف في يوم الوحدة الإسلامية، بينما يتساءل بعض رجال القانون في فرنسا، لماذا لا تتم محاكمة أصحاب الرسوم المسيئة للرسول تحت بند العداء للسامية، أليس الرسول من أحفاد سام بن نوح، وقد روى الترمذي أن الرسول هو القائل بأن “سام أبو العرب ويافث أبو الروم وحام أبو الحبش”؟
Nasrallah – the Age of Enlightenment, Macron – the Inquisition
Secularism is a political regime and a social aspect of the contemporary European state, it is a political and legal outcome of a deeper culture that emerged as a result of the Industrial Revolution and was embodied in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the revolution of reason and logic or as was called the Age of Enlightenment led by the giants as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. Its political slogans called for freedom, brotherhood, and equality during the French Revolution. But this movement was faced with counter thinking represented by the Catholic Inquisition which a great philosopher as Bruno and great scholars as Copernicus and Galileo had paid a high cost in charge of heresy based on the prohibition of resorting to reason and science. Politically and socially, many reformists were chased under the name of the disavowal of heresies, as happened with the philosopher Michael Servetus who was burnt alive in Geneva on the accusation of rejecting the doctrine of Trinity. Its history was known for its crimes against Muslims in Andalusia under the name of loyalty to God, so intellectually and culturally it formed an aspect of the continuation of the Crusades.
As in the Crusades, the French and the Turkish Presidents exchanged in vain beliefs, emotions, and the outcome feelings. Each one of them has tried to evoke a futile war. The French President Emmanuel Macron did not hesitate to talk about a crisis in Islam, Islamic terrorism, and Islamic Fascism, hoping to lead a front that includes the secularists in order to defend the liberty of expression about Islamic sanctities, the Christian extremists, who are fed up with the growing number of Muslims in Europe in general and in France in particular, and the National right which rejects the growing number of immigrants from Islamic countries, hoping that this front can be a source of leadership as the leaderships of the Crusades. While the Turkish President Recep Erdogan was seeking to lead a front that includes the oppressed Muslim communities due to the tyranny of the racist policies in Europe, the takfiri terrorist organizations backed by Turkey, and the Arab Muslim nations who are suffering from their governments that are subordinated to the governments of the West, and do not dare to address them bravely, criticize or oppose. These governments are partners of the governments of France and Europe in sponsoring the terrorist groups and supporting the takfiri belief in order to be operated in Libya and Syria not in Europe.
In this intellectual aridity and fatal chaos of fanaticism, a religious man from the followers and lovers of the Prophet emerged to lead the call to be rational, to bear the responsibility, and to be clear, recalling the deeper meanings of the slogans of the French Revolution and the calls of Rousseau and Voltaire where freedom means the respect of the freedom of belief which is the belief of the minority, the weak, and the oppressed, and where brotherhood means to be away from the logic of the racial discrimination on the basis of religion, race, color, and gender, and where equality is the fairness of applying the mental judgment of concepts before it is governed by law, and where the texts of prohibiting freedom and reason cannot be dealt with under the slogan of anti-Semitism even if scientific reservation and moral controls were taken into consideration, and the freedom of feeling hostile cannot be spread irrationally underestimating all moral controls of the human brotherhood under the slogan of the liberty of expression. Therefore, this religious leader has argued in the language of the Age of Enlightenment “as a heritage of the achievements of the human civilization” the man who is supposed to be the trustee constitutionally and politically not an army commander in the Crusades or a head of one of the inquisitions.
The words of Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah regarding the relationship of Muslims and the Islamic communities with the issues rose in Europe after the offensive drawings against the Prophet and the terrorist crimes relating are a philosophical and rational argument that recalls the spirit of the Age of Enlightenment and the resorting to reason. He adopted the suggestion of Al Azhar of an international legislation to prohibit the underestimation of sanctities as a base in the Day of the Islamic unity. While some jurists in France are wondering why the owners of the offensive drawings are not prosecuted under the name of anti-Semitism, Is not the Messenger one of the grandsons of Sam Bin Noah?! Al Tirmidhi narrated that the Prophet “peace be upon him” said: “Sam was the father of Arabs, Ham the father of the Ethiopians, and Yafith the father of the Romans”.
At the initiative of the American side, a telephone conversation took place between President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the United States of America Joseph Biden. The current state of Russian-American relations and some relevant aspects of the international agenda were discussed in detail. Joseph Biden confirmed his earlier invitation to the Russian President to take part in the Climate Summit, which will be held via videoconference on April 22-23. Both sides expressed their readiness to continue the dialogue on the most important areas of ensuring global security, which would meet the interests of not only Russia and the United States, but also the entire world community. Moreover, Joseph Biden expressed interest in normalizing the state of affairs on the bilateral track and establishing stable and predictable cooperation on such pressing issues as ensuring strategic stability and arms control, the Iranian nuclear program, the situation in Afghanistan, and global climate change. In this context, the US President proposed to consider the possibility of holding a personal summit meeting in the foreseeable future. During the exchange of views on the internal Ukrainian crisis, Vladimir Putin outlined approaches to a political settlement based on the Minsk Package of Measures. It was agreed to give instructions to the relevant departments to work out the issues raised during the telephone conversation.
President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. spoke today with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. They discussed a number of regional and global issues, including the intent of the United States and Russia to pursue a strategic stability dialogue on a range of arms control and emerging security issues, building on the extension of the New START Treaty. President Biden also made clear that the United States will act firmly in defense of its national interests in response to Russia’s actions, such as cyber intrusions and election interference. President Biden emphasized the United States’ unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The President voiced our concerns over the sudden Russian military build-up in occupied Crimea and on Ukraine’s borders, and called on Russia to de-escalate tensions. President Biden reaffirmed his goal of building a stable and predictable relationship with Russia consistent with U.S. interests, and proposed a summit meeting in a third country in the coming months to discuss the full range of issues facing the United States and Russia.
Why the difference in tone? Because the Russians don’t believe in loud statements before a negotiation and, unlike “Biden”, they are not insecure in their legitimacy (both the legitimacy of their policies and the legitimacy of their government). As for Biden, he just produces the exact same type of hot air which the Trump administration became so infamous for. I can tell you what most Russians think when they hear this. They think: “sure looks to me like the old man is desperately trying to encourage himself!”. I totally concur.
This being said, there is also some very premature triumphalism in Russia. A lot of “hurray patriots” are saying “Biden caved in first”. Their arguments go something like this:
According to Defense Minister Shoigu, the US/NATO have about 40,000 soldiers along the Russian border (ostensibly as an exercise) and about 15,000 weapons systems. In response to that threat, Russia deployed 2 Armies and 3 Airborne Divisions along her western border. That is something of the size of 200,000 soldiers. The US Americans saw this and understood that the Russian “fist” could smash them. This is why Biden caved in.
Well, I am not at all so sure that “Biden” caved in or “blinked first”. Why?
“In the coming months” is too late to defuse the current risks of war. They might meet in the upcoming climate conference on April 22-23. But that is the wrong format.
The first rule of military analysis is “don’t look at intentions, but look at capabilities”. This is even more true for “declared intentions”. And what are we reading into “Biden’s” supposed intentions? “Pursue a strategic security dialog” is the best I can find, and I am really not impressed.
Let’s assume that they meet before a full-scale war breaks out, and so what? Did Trump not meet with Kim Jong-un – did that do any good?
Last Sunday, Margarita Simonian, the head of Russia Today, said something very interesting on a Russian TV show (I paraphrase and summarize here):
We will never be able to reach a real agreement (to coexist) with the USA. Why? This is a country built on violence from Day 1. This is a country stuck with several ideological doctrines, including the Doctrine of Discovery to the Doctrine of Manifest Destiny. All these doctrines say the same thing: “we have the right to do whatever we want and we have the right to rule over everybody else. This land was ours, but those Indian SOBs had the arrogance to live there. So we will massacre them all and then create a beautiful feast when we will celebrate that they taught us what to eat (Thanksgiving Day). This was true not only in the 17th century. I remind you of the year 1831 when we already had the Decembrist revolt while the USA was engaged in a massive ethnic cleansing operation (the Trail of Tears) under the personal supervision of
President Andrew Jackson (a Democrat, by the way!) who deported 5 Indian tribes which were settled, had their own schools and many were Christianized. He deported them to Oklahoma using methods which resulted in thousands of deaths (one tribe lost ¼ of her people. My family was deported by Stalin (we were Armenians) and I can tell you that the methods used by Stalin during his deportations were a “gentle ballet” compared to what the “democractic United States” did.
We will never reach an agreement with them because we cannot agree to collapse. We will never reach an agreement with them because we cannot agree to become paupers. We will never reach an agreement with them because we cannot agree to give up our nuclear weapons. We will never reach an agreement with them because we cannot agree to forsake all our national interests and we cannot agree to only do that which they tell us to do (including to the detriment of our own interests). We will never reach an agreement with them because we will never agree to forget our history and we won’t agree to have our next generations consider themselves as a totally different nation. We will never reach an agreement with them because we will never agree to any of that, and they will never accept anything less! (emphasis added).
Frankly, I can only agree. From the First Crusade on, the core value and even identity of the political West (in its various manifestations) has always been imperialism. This is true of the Latin Papacy as much as it is true about Hitler’s National Socialism, and it is still true for today’s main ideology of the United States. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. We can call these various manifestations of the united messianic West by many names (today I call it “Zone A”), but this changes nothing to its essence, nature and behavior: the pretextes (ideologies) change, the policies stay the same.
This is why I have been saying that Russia and the AngloZionist Empire are locked in an existential war from which only one party will walk away and the other one will be either destroyed (Russia by the USA) or profoundly change (due to the internal dialectical contradictions of capitalism and the unsustainable nature of the US society today).
And don’t assume that it is “only” Simonian who is “seeing the light”. The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Riabkov, made the following statement about the USA:
“They talk about a high price, but they never mention it. What they have done so far, we have, firstly, studied well, and secondly, we have adapted. We do not believe that such terminology is generally applicable: price, payment, and so on. We simply defend our interests and the interests of our citizens, the Russian-speaking population, and we will continue to protect them”. “The question is what conclusions are drawn from this situation in Kiev and from Kiev’s patrons. These conclusions do not set up a positive mood, these threats only strengthen us in the belief that we are on the right course: the United States is our enemy, doing everything to undermine Russia’s position in the international arena, we do not see other elements in their approach to us. These are our conclusions”.
Pretty clear, no?
Years, even decades, of non-stop US threats against Russia have (finally!) achieved their full effect: the illusions which many Russians had for centuries about their western neighbors have almost completely disappeared from the Russian society and the Russian consciousness. What is left is a firm determination to survive, to live, to do whatever it takes to prevent the Empire from “assimilating” Russia.
Russians now also clearly see another truism of western policies. I would express it as so: it really does not matter whom Russia fights – it maybe even be Satan in person (and in many ways it is, let those with ears…), the West will always, always side with our enemy, even if it is Satan in person (again, let those with ears…). Let me just give you one example which says it all:
The USA claims that it was al-Qaeda which did 9/11. Fine. A high-school physics can prove the opposite, but fine. Yet that self-same USA totally backed “al-Qaeda” (all the various denominations and aliases included) in both Chechnia and Syria (and in Serbia too, I would add). And they are still at it.
Another example? Sure.
The West always supported the worst, most violent, rulers in Russia. Conversely, the very best rulers in Russian history are vilified, slandered and despised in the West, and they are, of course, described as obscurantist tyrants, even when compared to the western leaders of the same time period they look like saints (which some of them literally are!).
Want to try one more? Okay.
Let’s look at religion. In the history of relations between Russia and the West, we see something interesting: it does not matter which branch of western Christianity (Latin or Reformed) is in power, the rulers of the West will always side against their putative “Christian brothers”, even if that means siding with non-Christians! Not much has changed between the 15th century, the Crimean War and today: the West always created an ad-hoc “ecumenical coalition” to try to finally conquer Russia.
The bottom line is this: Simonian is 100% correct. The West’s “program for Russia” has not changed and it remains the same: Russia must vanish. Nothing else is acceptable for our western neighbors.
So where do we go from here?
Frankly, I don’t know. I don’t think anybody does. But I can express my hopes.
I hope that the current Russian stance (we are willing to take on the combined might of the USA+NATO+EU and “why would we want a world without Russia?”) to overcome the West’s delusional narcissism (We are almighty! Nobody can stop us! We will crush you!) and get enough folks back in touch with the “real reality” (as many were during the Cold War). Next, I really hope that the Empire will not unleash the Ukronazis in the Donbass (yes, hope dies last, and I have to admit that I currently don’t see how the Ukies could deescalate). I hope that the people of the EU will liberate themselves from their current colonial status, and that they will regain at least a modicum of real sovereignty. Lastly, I hope that the US society will defeat the Woke-freaks currently in power and that the USA will become a powerful, but normal, country (like so many empires have done it before). The slogan “we want our country back” has my total sympathy. But that is a lot of hope, I know.
Now for a pessimistic shot of realism.
First, Biden, the man, not the collective “Biden”, is in no shape to negotiate with anybody. Neither is his Harris. At best, he can do what microbrains like John Kerry or Josep Borrell did: meet with their counterparts, declare A, then fly back home and immediately proclaim non-A.
Tell me – why would the Russian be interested in this kind of silly circus?
What about the collective “Biden” then? Well, Blinken is definitely smarter that this arrogant imbecile Pompeo, but he sure hates Russia no less. Is that an improvement? Maybe.
I am afraid that this proposed meeting will never happen, I think that the White House sees this as a subtle ruse to try to lower the Russian defenses (both military and political). Won’t happen. It is too late for that.
Could it be that “Biden” is throwing in the towel and seeking some kind of arrangement with Russia. Never say never, but I find this exceedingly unlikely. Why? Because of the centuries long ideological messianic narcissism and sense of impunity of the US rulers: they simply cannot fathom that their “city upon the hill” has been placed in a kind of a “mate in three” situation by a horde of vodka guzzling asian barbarians (just like they can’t fathom how those evil “Commie Chinks” have built an economy vastly superior to theirs).
A famous leader of the “united West” also had a hard time accepting that he, and his putatively “invincible armies”, had been comprehensively defeated by Russian subhumans. Even while he could hear the sound of Soviet cannons in his underground bunker.
Speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on October 30, 2020, on the occasion of Islamic Unity Week, commemorating the birth of the Prophet of Islam, Mohammad b. Abdallah (born on the 12th day of the month of Rabi ’al-Awal according to the Sunnis, and the 17th according to the Shiites).
See also Ramzan Kadyrov’s full reply to Macron below
[…] This great Prophet is regarded by the unanimity of Muslims throughout history, until this day and until Judgment Day —it will always be like this—, as worthy of all their love, passion, respect, consideration and sanctification, more than anything they can feel for any other human being in terms of love, respect and sanctification. No other Prophet, Messenger, Close Friend of God, Imam, Righteous or Chosen one throughout history (has such a lofty status). All Muslims have an exceptional esteem, a special faith, a very unique love for this person, this man, this personality.
Muslims can differ on many things, and this has happened (many times) throughout history: they have differed on all kinds of issues, whether disputes of thought and intellect, of dogma, of jurisprudence, about what is lawful and what is forbidden, about the evaluation of events in the history of the Muslim world and the status of some personalities, etc. Today, in our time, important and major political questions can separate and oppose Muslims, even struggles and (inter-Muslim) wars, etc. But there are points and questions on which there is unanimity, on which Muslims have never been divided throughout history, and which will remain unchanged until Judgment Day. One of the most important points of convergence, which unanimously unites Muslims, is their faith in Muhammad son of Abdallah, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family, their faith in his quality as Messenger and Prophet, in his unique character, in his (supreme) status and in his (unparalleled) rank. Muslims consider him as the Seal of the Prophets —there will be no Prophet after him—, the Master of Messengers, the best of creatures, the most perfect creation, the most perfect and noblest man (of all), the creature closest to God the Most High and the Exalted, the one whom God loves and cherishes the most. This is how Muslims regard this Messenger and this Prophet.
This faith is so great, the love of Muslims for the Prophet is such that they are ready to sacrifice their blood, their flesh, their whole being to him, they are ready to sacrifice their life, their soul, their mind, their heart for him. This is not a theoretical, philosophical, cultural or intellectual faith, no. There is an emotional and sentimental relationship, an (exceptional) attachment of soul and spirit (of every Muslim) with the Messenger of God, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family, (which manifests itself) when required, and it will always be required. (All Muslims) have the greatest respect for him here on earth, and know his status and his preeminent rank in the Hereafter (alongside God). All of this should be kept in mind in the points I will now address. Because the consequence of all this is that it is impossible for Muslims to tolerate the slightest insult, the smallest offense against this greatest Prophet. Because (all) Muslims consider that defending the dignity of their Prophet is the highest priority, which takes precedence over all other calculations, over all other interests –whether political, economic, concerning means of subsistence, etc. Absolutely no concern can come before this issue. This is the highest priority for Muslims, (under all circumstances). Muslims can not (ever) tolerate or forgive attacks on the dignity of their Prophet, nor never be silent in the face of such attacks, and that is why they react (with great virulence) to any action or behavior that involves an insult, outrage or offense against the greatest of God’s Messengers, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family.
The situation in France: condemnation of the Nice attack
I now come to the first point of my speech this evening, namely the current problem… This is not a problem limited to one country, or to Muslims in a specific country, but it concerns all Muslims throughout the world. I am talking about the current problem that the highest French authorities have with Islam and with Muslims. And I will express myself in a calm, precise and rational manner, in order to dissect this problem and seek ways of resolving it. My goal is to find a solution, not to reinforce enmities or hostilities, nor to seek new enemies.
I will start by (evoking) the last event, so that the false does not mix with the truth, nor the truth with the false, which would annihilate all truth and justice. I begin with the event in the city of Nice, in France, where a Muslim man killed three people and injured others. This attack —I start from the end to go back to the beginning—, we condemn it (very) strongly, and the Muslims (clearly) condemned it, each from his position: whether they are scholars, religious dignitaries or politicians, the entire Muslim world and the Muslim authorities in France and in Europe and everywhere else (have clearly condemned it). This attack is rejected and condemned by Islam itself, and no one should attribute it to Islam. Islam and the Muslim religion reject it, because Islam (formally) prohibits killing the innocent, attacking them or inflicting any harm on them, whatever their beliefs or convictions. And any similar attack that has taken place in the past, or that will happen in the future, will always be in our eyes, Muslims, and primarily from the point of view of Islam, (strongly) rejected and condemned, wherever it occurs, whatever the target, whether in France or anywhere else in the world. This point must be clearly established, as a principle and as a basis, so that our position is quite clear thereafter.
Terrorism and Islam: the unacceptable confusion of the French authorities
My second point concerning this question is that the French authorities, and all the other authorities, do not have the right to pin the responsibility for a crime perpetrated by a single person on his religion, nor on the followers of the religion to which he belongs. To put it more clearly, if a crime is perpetrated by a Muslim, no one has the right to blame Islam for that crime, and no one has the right to blame it on Muslims in France or around the world. Because it is an incorrect, unfair, illegitimate, illegal and immoral attitude. When a person commits a crime, it is he who must be held responsible for that crime, whatever his motivations, even if that person considers himself driven by religious considerations. If, for example, and these are things that are happening in France and in Europe, and elsewhere in the world —I am going to speak only of Muslims and Christians, I will not speak of Jews—, if a Christian man commits such a crime, which has already happened in France —and in France, most crimes are not committed by Muslims, even if the media insist on Muslim crimes and hide others, but those who follow this closely and check the statistics know it—, would it be right for anyone to pin the responsibility of this crime on our Master (Jesus Christ) the Messiah, peace be upon him, God forbid? Would it be right to blame it on the Christian religion, or on Christians around the world? Or on the Christians in the country in which the crime was committed? No one would accept such a confusion. But unfortunately, this is how the French authorities behave (towards Muslims). When President Macron and other French officials speak of “Islamist terrorism”, which someone translated as “Islamic terrorism”, which is the same thing, when they speak of “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamist fascism”… There is no such thing! “Islamist terrorism”, no more than “Islamist fascism”, do not exist. If someone commits a terrorist act, he is the terrorist. If anyone commits a crime, he is the criminal. But to speak of “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamist fascism” (is misleading & unacceptable).
Today, the United States are carrying out massacres all over the world. Since 2000 alone, since September 11, 2001, the wars they have waged in Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire Middle East, not to mention the world wars, Hiroshima, etc. Let’s only talk about what the current generations have gone through. Millions of people have been killed in these wars, and Americans admit killing hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes claiming it was by mistake, like the bombing of wedding ceremonies in Afghanistan, or as a deliberate act. Does anyone claim, because the American President and his administration are of the Christian religion [and claim waging a “crusade” against “evil” in the name of God], as are the majority of American soldiers [at least culturally], is anyone claiming that American terrorism is Christian terrorism [or Christianist terrorism]? Does anyone claim that the responsible for these massacres is our Master the Messiah, God forbid, or the Christian religion, whose values and teachings (clearly) oppose these terrorist acts? Not to mention what the European armies, including the French army, did when they invaded Algeria and perpetrated atrocious crimes there, and what others have done in Libya and elsewhere in our region. No Muslim has denounced “Christian terrorism” or blamed the Christian religion [or so-called Republican, Democratic & Civilizational ideals] for these crimes, never. And if anyone made such a claim, he would be sorely mistaken. But there is no such tendency (to accuse Christianity) in the Muslim world.
Therefore, it is unacceptable, when a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew or a follower of any religion or thought, commits a crime, to attach the responsibility for it on his religion, or on the Prophet of his religion, or on the community that believes in this religion. To impute responsibility & liability to a whole group or religion is a (serious) mistake. And it must stop. But unfortunately, France and its officials make this confusion every day. After that, they claim that they respect the Muslim religion, but if this is really the case, they must renounce the expression “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamist fascism”, and stop following Trump, who has made his specialty of this type of expression.https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x6e7jhb
ISIS and Charlie Hebdo are both despicable
Third, in the last few days, we have heard a lot of criticism that instead of being concerned about some people who insult the Prophet and Islam, Muslims had better deal first with the Muslims who smear Islam and the Prophet (by their behavior). I would like to say on this subject that it is obvious that some Muslims smear Islam, that some Muslims smear the Prophet of Islam, peace and blessings of God be upon him and his family, and that some commit very, very, very, very, very dangerous (and serious) offenses (against Islam). What we have seen in recent years in terms of terrorist acts, crimes, destruction of mosques, churches, historical remains, murders, beheadings, butchered chests, assassinations of innocent people from various peoples and various beliefs, slaughtered like sheep, so many atrocious images that the western media have also spread to the world, this is undoubtedly a very great insult that was done (by ISIS) to our religion and to our Prophet. We strongly opposed this, and clearly condemned it (in addition to having fought and defeated ISIS in Syria, Iraq, etc.).
But even in the hypothesis —and this is not a mere hypothesis, it is a reality— where some Muslims smear our Prophet, that is no reason for you to smear our Prophet too. If some of you blaspheme what you consider holy, does that give us the right to do the same? It is completely absurd. Prophets, Messengers, religions, religious symbols and all that is holy must be respected, even if some followers of these religions sully and desecrate them.
Terrorists are the West’s creatures, not Islam’s
Fourth, and I continue to address French officials and the public opinion, instead of blaming Islam and Muslims for these terrorist acts that occur in France, Europe and elsewhere, let us rather seek together your responsibility, your own responsibility for these acts and the (existence of) these (terrorist) groups. Let’s go back (in time) a bit. Again, no need to go back 50 years, just go back ten years, to 2011. There is a takfiri and terrorist thought that supports the murder of anyone who has a difference of opinion, of thought, of dogma, of religious school, of politics or on the smallest other detail. And the followers of this thought perpetrate monstrous crimes. You are the ones who protected this thought, you Americans, the American administration, the French government, the European governments. You protected them. You gave them all the help in the world. For those who are followers of other thoughts, it is very difficult to obtain visas to come and work in your countries. But as for the followers of takfiri thought, all the doors were opened to them, and they were protected. These groups which have been formed and which are followers of this takfiri thought, it is you who facilitated their access to Syria and Iraq. You have contributed to their support, their funding and their armament, to the point that they have acquired experience, expertise, a fighting spirit, etc. And I ask you the question: after all this, are you surprised that there are slaughterings, beheadings? But where did it start? It started in our region, in our countries. Who committed these acts? The very terrorist groups that you have supported politically, financially, in the media, in terms of communication… You have granted them international protection, you have organized international conferences to support them. You opened up all the borders to them, you provided them with passports, and you made it easier for them to come to the region. So start by looking for your own responsibility. Ask yourself how responsible you are for all of this.
I invite you to consult the archives for the years 2011-2012, whether in my statements or those of other people. We have urged you many times, especially the Europeans, not to participate in this world war against Syria, against Iraq and against our region —they failed to extend it to Lebanon (thanks to Hezbollah). We have told you many times not to embrace these terrorist groups, not to support them, not to facilitate their coming (from all over the world) and their strengthening. Because you will lose this battle, and these terrorists will turn against you. This (takfiri) thought will turn against you. These groups and these fighters will return to your countries and sow terror and chaos there. And whatever they’ve done in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere, they’re going to come back to you.
And that day, we told you clearly that the United States was very far, and that Europe was the area closest to our region (and would therefore be the preferred destination of these terrorists), and that the greatest threat therefore hung over Europe. We have warned you and urged you to be cautious. But you got carried away by your arrogance and your malice, and did not accept our exhortations. You thought you were going to win this war, and we know the outcome you were hoping for.
Today, you also need to question your own responsibility, and stop blaming those who have no responsibility. What is the relation between the Prophet of Islam, Mohammad b. Abdillah, peace and blessings be upon him, and these crimes? What is the relation between his religion, his Islam and his Quran with these crimes? What is the relation between the Muslim Community of 2 billion Muslims and these crimes? Those who are responsible for these crimes are people you embraced, protected, raised, to whom you have granted all the help in the world, whom you have brought (to Syria & Irak from everywhere). And it is this policy that must be reconsidered, because until now, you persist in this direction, you still carry out the same policies.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius praises Al-Nosra’s “good job” in Syria (authentic), while Al-Baghdadi praises their good job in France
Otherwise… I repeat with the same words I used then (in 2012), when we chose our side: I said we would never be on the side of the head-cutters, the chest-rippers, the (human) liver-eaters, the cut-throats. These people were your allies, the groups that you supported, that you protected. Therefore, it is you, the French, the Europeans, the Americans and their allies in the region who must reconsider your actions and behavior, and renounce the use of these terrorist groups as instruments in the service of (your) political projects and (your) war projects. And you never learn (from your mistakes). In Afghanistan, that is what you did (against the USSR), and you paid the price on September 11 (2001). You made those mistakes, and you make them again, always the same mistakes, the same mistakes, the same mistakes. The use of these kinds of (terrorist) groups as instruments must stop, otherwise you will also pay the price for these mistakes.
When the West was praising Ben Laden
Sidebar: See also Putin’s comments on the issue: “Instead of settling conflicts, [the Western interventions] lead to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable States we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals. Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over. They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11. During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.
In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force? We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.”
France embarks on an insane crusade against Islam
Fifth, the French authorities have launched a battle against Islam and Muslims for illusory, and sometimes incomprehensible reasons. They dragged France as a whole in this battle, and they are trying to drag all of Europe behind them. I speak with caution, and I’m not here to score points. What is the cause of the recent problem, the recent developments that we have seen in the last few weeks? So much so that it became clear that France, its President, its government, its ministers, Parliament, the media, the street, etc., are very clearly engaged in an open war (against Islam and Muslims). What’s the cause? Who started this problem? Who assaulted the other? Who insulted the other?
The problem started when this hypocritical and infamous French newspaper (Charlie Hebdo) started piblishing cartoons insulting the Prophet of Islam, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family. And now Muslims are denouncing it in many parts of the world. Then it developed into several events, up to the History Professor who was killed and beheaded. Instead of trying to solve this problem, get it under control and take a fair and measured stance, consisting in preventing the confusion of the true and the false and to mix everything, as they say in Lebanon, (by spreading confusion between Islam and terrorism, free speech and hate speech…), because there is an essential cause which led to all these developments…
In 2015, a French teenager who merely reposted the cartoon on the right was indiceted for apology of terror
Instead of acting on the causes (I will come back to this at the end of my speech), the French authorities have acted on the consequences. Unfortunately, what happened is that the French authorities, instead of solving this problem, declared war on Islam and Muslims, and stubbornly and obstinately stuck (to their error), claiming that it was all about freedom of speech, and that France would persist in exercising this freedom of speech, in protecting & publishing those outrageous cartoons, which is absolutely insane (it is a capital mistake). France wants to persist in protecting & publishing those outrageous cartoons. So what is your message to 2 billion Muslims around the world? Because we are not talking about politics, money, economy, security struggle, etc., no! We are talking about the Prophet, the Messenger, the Master of Muslims, and I explained very well at the beginning of my speech what he represents for them. So what is the thing that would deserve these sacrifices on your part (state of maximum alert, loss of human life, etc.), O French authorities? What is it that justifies you endorsing it all, justifying it and defending it, protecting it by starting such a battle, embracing it? You claim that it is in the name of your values, including freedom of speech, and that you do not want to give up those values. All right, let’s debate that then. I said from the start that I wanted to speak in a calm and rational manner.
Freedom of speech has no limits only when speaking about Muslims
The first debate is about the way (this principle) is exercised, and the confrontation of your statements (in favor of freedom of speech) with reality. If things were really as you say, if things were really that way in France or in Europe (that is to say if freedom of speech was total there), perhaps we could say that indeed, the problem should be solved differently (than by banning these cartoons). But this is not the case. You must first convince Muslims that your claims are true and sincere, which is by no means a given, because Muslims do not accept your claims as a reality. Your claim is neither true nor sincere. We have a large amount of evidence and examples in France and in Europe where official actions have prevented freedom of speech, and even suppressed freedom of speech, for things that are much less sensitive than an issue that touches a Prophet in whom 2 billion people in the world believe.
In order not to waste too much time, I will be satisfied with a single example, well known, and which does not need much explanation, namely the French philosopher Roger Garaudy. One can easily find (the details of this case) in archives, televisions, official documents, videos, statements, etc. It all exists. All this man did was write a book, a study, on the founding myths of the Israeli genocide, namely the Holocaust. He proposed a rational debate, putting forward figures and discussing them, proposing a scientific and academic reflection on this subject, and speaking of the political instrumentalisation of this event. And let us recall that to this day, Europe and in particular Germany are still victims of a racketeering of international Zionism because of this issue. This man (Garaudy) neither insulted, offended, denigrated nor caricatured anyone, nor did he mention the Jewish religion. He only discussed an important event that happened in Europe.
What did the French authorities do in the face of this French philosopher? Judicial proceedings were launched against him, he was tried, and sentenced to prison. It was perhaps his advanced age that prevented him from serving his prison sentence. This man was (severely) repressed. Is this freedom of expression? Is this the value that you (claim) to defend? Because in reality, what we can say (to accurately describe the reality) is that when a certain community is affected (the Jews), when it comes to Israel or the Zionists, there are clear limits imposed to the freedom of speech. But when it comes to another community, an entire Ummah, 2 billion people, when it comes to their holiest things, then there is total freedom of speech.
The example of Roger Garaudy, and many other examples that may be compiled on another occasion, confirms that freedom of speech in France and in Europe is not absolute, but hampered by legal, political, security limits, etc. [let us remind that in France, anything that can disturb public order, even without being illegal, can be prohibited]. This claim that freedom of speech is total (in France), and that anyone can say and do whatever they want, that any newspaper can disparagingly caricature the Prophet of Islam, or that someone could make a movie in which they make fun of the Prophet of Islam, this would not pose any problem, because freedom (of speech) is absolute, this claim is false. And if you want, some another time, we can present you with countless examples (of repression of freedom of speech in France). That is why this argument is inadmissible, and the whole battle you are waging today (against Islam) is based on non-existent and unreal foundations. The situation in France is not one of unlimited freedom of speech. We can make a whole list of your censorship of TV channels, newspapers, magazines, etc., on the pretext that they support a particular thought, or have broadcast particular programs and series (see for example the ban on the Al-Manar channel on the pretext of anti-Semitism). All of this can easily be found in the archives. So much for the first point.https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7x99lo
On September 18, 2012, following the broadcast of excerpts from a blasphemous film about the Prophet produced in the United States, entitled Innocence of Muslims, Hezbollah called its supporters to a huge demonstration to denounce this attack on Islam and Muslims. Over a hundred thousand people took to the streets of Beirut to proclaim their attachment to the Prophet and their rejection of any attack on his dignity. To everyone’s surprise, Nasrallah participated in person (remember that the Israeli, Western and Gulf secret services have made his elimination a priority), and delivered the above speech, one of the most vocal to date. Without the ravages of the coronavirus, it is likely that Hezbollah & Iran would have expressed outrage against Charlie Hebdo and Macron in a similar fashion.
The Rational and Moral Limits of Freedom of Speech
The second aspect (of this argument), which is equally important, is that even if this value of free speech was (really) fundamental and absolute to you, can it be considered as such when it is exercised in this form? Coming back to fundamental humanitarian and ethical values, can we claim that there should be absolute freedom of speech? Should it not refrain from crossing certain limits? Why must freedom of speech stop in the face of anti-Semitism? Does freedom of speech make it possible to insult others, to humiliate them, to undermine their dignity, to defame them, to slander them, to falsely blame them for crimes for example [cf. the Charlie Hebdo cartoons representing the Prophet, and therefore all Muslims, as a terrorist, and his religion as sh***]? And would it be fair to tolerate it? [Let us remember that Charlie Hebdo has been condemned 9 times by French Courts for libel].
If a person, in the name of freedom of speech, disseminates State secrets and facts that undermine national security, how will you react? How do the United States and the West behave in these situations [cf. the martyrdom of Julian Assange, a real case of freedom of expression completely censored by the media; France rejected both Assange’s and Snowden’s application for political asylum]? If anyone is doing, declaring or announcing things, or writing about matters which can create internal strife, a civil war, a danger to national security, how will you behave in the face of it? The freedom of speech does not stop then in front of the honor of anybody [in 1970, Charlie Hebdo’s ancestor, Hara-Kiri, was forbidden by the Interior Minister after a cartoon offensive to Charles de Gaulle who had just died]? (If this is really the case), we hope and call for you to reconsider things because it is not a human value, it is against human values. It is not an ethical value, it is contrary to all ethics and to all moral values. Therefore, we have to reconsider.
A call to reason
In conclusion, I would like to address the French authorities and tell them this: you see, today, in the Muslim world, nobody is looking for new enemies, nor new battles. I do not think that the state of mind of 2 billion Muslims is belligerent, on the contrary: Muslims are working to reduce hostilities in this world, and to remove from them the specter of wars and confrontations for which they always (are the first to) pay the price. You have to think about how to correct the mistake, the huge mistake you made. I heard the French leaders say: “We will not give in to terrorism”. No one is asking you to give in to terrorism. What you are being asked to do is correct your mistake. Righting one’s faults does not mean submitting to terrorism. On the contrary, persisting in your mistakes and engaging in confrontations that are not in the interest of anyone, this is submitting to terrorism, this is playing into the hands of terrorism and terrorists who want to blow up the whole world. You have to go back to the basic principles, and fix this fault, which is not like submitting to terrorism. This idea (of free speech), first of all, you exercise it in a wrong way, so exercise it in a right way. Apply it to Muslims as you apply it to non-Muslims (and Jews in particular). Be fair, be honest. Insulting our dignity, the dignity of our Prophets, of our Prophet, this cannot be tolerated by any Muslim in the world.
And I want to tell you in all clarity: even the political regimes of the Arab-Muslim world, which can buy and sell (anything), and find pretexts in front of their people to engage in plots, concessions and betrayals (of Palestine, etc.), they cannot, in front of their people, be silent or cover up the attack on the Prophet of these people, whom they respect, sanctify and love passionately. This is why this battle (against Islam and Muslims) that you insist on waging and in which you persist is a losing battle for you. Where are the interests of France and the French people? (What will happen) to your political and economic interests, to your relations with the Muslim peoples, with the Muslim world, if the French authorities wish to persist in this direction? This issue needs to be resolved, and you are able to find a (reasonable) solution to it.
Towards international legislation banning blasphemy
I conclude by telling you that instead of trying to resolve the consequences, to put more and more soldiers and security services on alert to prevent such terrorist acts, forget the empty pretexts and solve the root of the problem. Do not allow this denigration, this humiliation to persist, this aggression, this attack (against Islam and Muslims). Only then will the whole world be with you. Anyway, terrorist acts are (clearly) condemned, as I said at the start of my remarks. But your responsibility and everyone’s responsibility is to get to the root of the problem and solve it (once and for all). In this regard, it is possible to rely on the proposal of His Eminence the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, and his call for international legislation banning such attacks against Muslims and the Muslim community. It is possible to rely on a similar formulation, for example an international law criminalizing the attack against the Prophets and Messengers, or attack against heavenly religions, or attack against what the Communities consider sacred, for example. Anything like this would do. Of course, if such international legislation is enacted, it will constitute a legal framework for freedom of speech, and a way out (which will allow the) French government (to break the stalemate while saving face) and for all other governments who claim to protect freedom of speech and claim that it is part of their values and laws.
A way out must be found to this problem. It is not tolerable (to let it go on), the world having enough problems, confrontations and wars already. It is not tolerable, on the pretext of vain, ridiculous and doubtful claims as to their humanity, their morals and their legality, to push the world and the peoples of the world, and especially our Muslim community, as well as the countries of Europe which have this position and this status, to confrontations and wars of this type. The responsibility for solving this problem now lies with the French authorities in the first place. Everyone must cooperate to resolve this issue and put an end to this source of sedition. […]
Nasrallah concluded his speech by giving the example of Yemen, where despite the war and the catastrophic humanitarian situation, millions of people participated in the demonstrations commemorating the birth of the Prophet, denouncing France and affirming their readiness to defend the dignity of the Prophet. and the holy places of Islam, especially Palestine. He invited the Lebanese to scrupulously respect the health rules (masks, hand sanitizer, social distancing) against the coronavirus.
***
Here is how Kadyrov, President of Chechnia, replied to Macron (machine translated):
“The French authorities support the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. This was stated by President Emmanuel Macron. He calls the actions that are offensive to almost two billion Muslims of the world “freedom of speech.” Moreover, Macron decided that he would change their religion and create “enlightened Islam” in France.
I do not know what state Macron was in when he made this statement, but the consequences of such a reaction can be very tragic. The French President himself is now becoming like a terrorist. Supporting provocations, he covertly calls on Muslims to commit crimes.
Macron cannot fail to know that the cartoons of the Prophet are painfully perceived by believers. And by his actions, on the contrary, he fans the fire, and does not extinguish it, as any adequate leader should have done. Never in history has such a policy ended well. But the President of France needs such upheavals related specifically to the Muslim world.
Hiding behind a desire to restore order, he is developing some new laws, talking about the need to control mosques and religious organizations. But in fact, the whole problem lies in himself. Until he and the leaders of other European countries begin to respect concepts such as “RELIGION”, “CULTURE”, “MORALITY”, there will be no worthy future and order in their States. Mockery of religion, mockery of it, they consider all this to be an observance of freedom of speech, but at the same time they themselves encroach on the values of other people.
Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is an example for all Muslims in the world. We are all, almost two billion people, followers of his sunnah. And this, among other things, unites us. The most important thing in a Muslim’s life is religion. No one has the right to treat it in a mocking manner. Muslims will not forgive this.
Stop it, Macron, before it’s too late, stop provocations and attacks on faith. Otherwise, you will go down in history as a President who made extravagant decisions. Your absurd position on the publication of cartoons today is condemned not only by Muslims around the world, but also by any sober-minded representatives of other faiths.
You don’t even have the courage to admit that the mockery of faith and parodies of it became the reason for the tragic fate of the teacher in the suburbs of Paris. He tirelessly went to this result, defiantly provoking pupils, regardless of their indignation and requests to stop displaying offensive drawings. As a result, you elevate him to the rank of a hero of France, and the person he provoked is made a terrorist.
Well, Macron, if you call him a terrorist, then in that case, you are a hundred times worse, because you force people to terrorism, push people towards it, leave no choice, create all the conditions for nurturing extremist ideas in the minds of young people. You can safely call yourself the leader and inspirer of terrorism in your country.
Hiding behind all this time with false words about the highest human values, you by your behavior and actions are forcing people to commit crimes. And if you do not want to understand simple truths, then be prepared for the fact that Muslims around the world will not allow the name of the great Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to be insulted. You can not even doubt it!
![Calls for boycott of French products - Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]](https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/SUhM8nrysD9UhrgrCoiVyARel8zcoFIfS0uLyt5WyUea3CD647BbcoYWX5tdREemHJj8rxBFqtKBnxpwgMKf1olf2Q_21bu7Rs-sSEuj-Zji-2MwfIz2NX_TTIwX65RnAHXZVa05af4wHwRux1f5zmJMWb-FOA=s0-d-e1-ft#https://mcusercontent.com/0f75dc11487e03cbba46b3dd8/images/d4584fd6-e431-4cbe-843a-59dabe152567.jpg)
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 