Thierry Meyssan On The Revolution Against Political Islam

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 17, 2017

Regular readers here know two things about my  attitude toward Islam: (1) I am definitely not friendly to its doctrine, and (2) I definitely do not believe every last Muslim of the world’s billion-plus Muslims are out to “get” everyone else. From my viewpoint, the history of that ideology, especially in the twentieth century, has been one long frustration – usually by the imperial powers of the West, and particularly by Great Britain and Imperial (and later, Nazi) Germany – of the indigenous attempts of those within Islam to reform the religion and the culture. Indeed, for the German contribution to this sad story, one can read my The Third Way.

Which makes the following article by Thierry Meyssan, notwithstanding its glaring inaccuracies concerning early Christian history, all the more important, for as I mentioned in the previous week’s News and Views, Meyssan’s hypothesis is that Mr. Trump’s recent visit and arms deal with Saudi Arabia is about more than just continuing the same old pattern of support of a royal-clerical state. The deal, Meyssan contends, could not have been made without commitments from the Middle Eastern nations involved, and particularly Saudi Arabia, to move away from “political Islam” and support of radical groups like the Brotherhood:

A wind of secularism blows over the Muslim world

Behind the hypothesis, however, Meyssan is also implying that there is a fundamental break between London – which in his view continues to support “political Islam” – and the Trump Administration, which he contends is trying to lead an initiative to break from prior policy of tacit support and funding of such groups and the states that support them:

We know today that the « Arab Springs » were a British initiative aimed at putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power and thus reinforcing Anglo-Saxon domination over the « Greater Middle East ».

For 16 years, the Western powers have been rightfully accusing the Muslims of not cleaning up their own house, and of tolerating terrorists. However, it is clear today that these terrorists are supported by the same Western powers in order to enslave Muslims by means of « political Islam ». London, Washington and Paris have no problems with terrorism until it spills over from the « Greater Middle East », and they never criticise « political Islam », at least as far as the Sunnis are concerned.

By giving his speech in Riyadhh, on 21 May 2017, President Trump intended to put an end to the terrorism which is consuming the region, and is now spreading to the West. The words he spoke did indeed act as an electroshock. His speech was interpreted as an authorisation to finish with the system.

What resulted, according to Meyssan, was something akin to uncorking a bottle that had been living under pressure for centuries, and now, with the bottle uncorked, the result cannot be undone:

What had seemed unthinkable over the last few centuries suddenly took shape. Saudi Arabia agreed to cut off all contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, and raged against those who continue to pursue their collaboration with the British, and particularly against Qatar. Riyadh gave the signal for a cleansing which will sweep much frustration along with it. In a spirit of Bedouin vengeance, diplomatic relations have been interrupted, and an economic blockade was organised against the Qatari population – while in the Emirates, a sentence of 15 years of imprisonment was established by law for any individual who showed as much as a little compassion for the inhabitants of accursed Qatar.

A gigantic displacement of forces and alliances has begun. If this movement is to continue, the region will organise itself around a new fissure. The question of the struggle against imperialism will wither and give way to the struggle against clericalism.

And this has led to a corrresponding “outburst” of editorials:

In two weeks, the Arab Press, which until now had viewed the Muslim Brotherhood in a favourable light, as a powerful secret organisation, and jihadism as a legitimate engagement, has suddenly made an about-turn. Everywhere, everyone is publishing denunciations of the pretension of the Muslim Brotherhood who want to regulate people’s lives, and the cruel folly of jihadism.

This flood of commentaries, the centuries of frustration that they express, coupled with their violence, makes any back-pedalling impossible – which does not, however, mean that the alliance Iran-Qatar-Turkey-Hamas will go all the way. This revolutionary tsunami is happening in the middle of the month of Ramadan. Meetings between friends and families, which should be consensual celebrations, sometimes turn into arguments about what until now had been perceived as the basic truths of Islam.

As Meyssan goes on to observe, even Iran’s Revolutionary Guard harbors simmering resentments against the ayatollahs governing the country.

We then get a bit of complete nonsense regarding Christian history, which Meyssan assumes – like so many – was completely “clergy-less” in its early years:

Like original Christianity, which had no ministers (these only arrived in the 3rd century), original Islam and current Sunnism have none. Only Chiism has been structured like Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As a result, political Islam today is incarnated by the Muslim Brotherhood and the government of Sheikh Rohani (the title of Shiekh indicates that President Rohani is a member of the Chiite clergy).

If so, Christianity would be almost unique among world religions, especially from that part of the world, in not having any clergy; after all, it was an offspring of Judaism, and Judaism certainly had a clergy, and the rabbinate could be taken to be a kind of ministry in lieu of the ancient Hebrew priesthood. In any case, the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch would certainly stand as a pre-third century witness to the fact that early Christianity was not the  clergy-less paradise that so many think it was; it was, on the contrary, very hierarchical and very sacramental.  Additionally, Meyssan makes more of Pope Paul VI’s dropping the use of the papal tiara – symbol of papal claims and authority – than should be: for while the symbol was dropped, the claims were not. Indeed, when one reads the documents of the Second Vatican Council, amid all the modern-sounding verbiage, those sections dealing with the papacy itself read very much like the “old fashioned” language of Innocent III, of Pius IX and Vatican One: there was no diminution of claims whatsoever. In short: the tiara could return tomorrow, because what it symbolizes – the claims themselves – are still there.

But enough of that, for beyond this, Meyssan’s view is worth pondering, for it carries some implications, some of which, Meyssan contends, are already happening:

Meanwhile, the whole region is buzzing – in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood have left Tripoli, leaving a militia to liberate Saif el-Islam Kadhafi, and General Haftar to expand his influence. In Egypt, the General-President al-Sissi has asked his opposite numbers in the Gulf to draw up a list of terrorists. In Palestine, the political directors of Hamas have fled to Iran. In Syria, the jihadists have stopped fighting against the Republic and are awaiting orders. In Iraq, the army has redoubled its efforts against the Muslim Brotherhood and the Order of the Naqshbandis. In Saudi Arabia, the Muslim World League has excluded from its administrative council the Brotherhood’s star preacher, Sheikh Qaradawi. And Turkey and Pakistan have begun the transfer of tens of thousands of soldiers towards Qatar -which can now only feed itself with the help of Iran.

A new dawn seems to be rising over the region.

But assuming he is correct in his diagnosis, there are also some implications for the west, not the least is the cleavage between Washington and London, and this is where it could get interesting, for one implication of his analysis is that the Trump Administration has broken with prior British and American policy in a major way, and in so breaking, has broken with those factions within the American deep state that have been cooperating and to a certain extent leading and orchestrating the prior policy, including the tacit and very covert financial support of the same radical groups. We call them “neo-cons” or “neo-libs”, and they have been running American foreign policy since at least the Clinton Administration, with roots in that of the G.H.W. Bush administration. On this view, Mr. Trump has set the fox loose in the henhouse, and if it portends major changes in the Middle East, and a renewed commitment to American allies there such as Saudi Arabia, it also portends a major shuffling in the “deep state”. Time will tell if this effort will bear fruit.

And that means a long term effort will have to be sustained, for the nature of the change Mr. Meyssan is suggesting will be long term in nature, with bumps and fits along the way. What to look for? I suggest that if Mr. Meyssan’s analysis is correct, then the response of such nations like Indonesia, a predominantly secular Muslim state, will be crucial to watch, for that nation is undergoing its own internal struggles against “political Islam”. How such nations respond to this, how the Saudis respond to this, will be crucial in order for Mr. Trump’s initiative to work.

See you on the flip side…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Advertisements

NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM APRIL 28 2016

Source: Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
April 28, 2016

The Army says the USA will face all sorts of new threats… but wait ’til you hear what they are….

http://www.armytimes.com/story/milita…

CATO Institute – Time For America To Reconsider Its Relationship With..


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
February 4, 2016

There’s more evidence that the American deep state is reconsidering its long relationship with the (out)house of Saud, this time from the CATO institute, an American policy think tank. And in what is becoming a somewhat familiar pattern, it isn’t being reported in the American media, but by Russia’s Sputnik, in this article shared by Mr. V.T.:

America Pays a High Moral & Material Price for Its Alliance With the Saudis

If Sputnik’s reporting of the study is indeed accurate, then there may be a lot lurking in between the lines here, so it is important to look at what the lines are, for such policy studies within the American deep state “think tank apparatus” usually precede major policy changes by only a few years, and in this case, I suspect that this policy change is percolating quietly in the background of the USA’s current election theater:

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com

Victoria Nuland’s [Unscheduled?] Meeting In KalininGrad With Top…

Geopolitics

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D
January 24, 2016

The strangeness around the recent Iranian “hostage”( event appears to be growing almost daily. You’ll recall that in last Thursday’s News and Views I speculated on the possibility that perhaps the whole thing was some covert operation gone wrong, or intercepted, by the Iranian government and military, or even that perhaps it was a covert operation deliberately designed to be intercepted by the Iranians. Whichever the case may have been, Tehran wisely decided not to play the “world war three brinksmanship game,” and quickly released the captives (which, you’ll note, hardly makes the incident a “hostage” incident as it has been reported in the west). Subsequently, of course, came the story from Tehran, repeated by Russia’s Novorossiya, that an ISIS commander was on board one of the US Navy riverboats. Whatever the truth or lack thereof on that score may be(and I’m personally inclined for the present to be skeptical of that claim), the story does appear to have the kernel of truth to it.

Continue Reading at: GizaDeathStar.com

Russia & China Trying To Mediate Between Saudi Arabia & Iran

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 10, 2016

In the light of last Thursday’s News and Views from the Nefarium, this story, while predictable, seems to be unfolding faster than I(or anyone else) can blog about it. You’ll recall that in last Thursday’s News and Views I mentioned, briefly, that the Iraqi Prime Minsiter, Mr. Abadi, had recently journeyed to Beijing, seeking Chinese help in rebuilding his country (hey, wait a minute, I thought that’s what Mr. Cheney and Halliburton were supposed to be doing), and seeking Chinese military help in handling ISIS. Notably, he did not ask the West, or the USA for its help. As regular readers here know, last year I began to suggest that Saudi Arabia was “on the menu” and that if Mr Global wanted his bright shiny New World Order, it would be difficult to impossible to do so when radical Islamicism was in the picture. Similarly, I also suggested that the same problem – Islamism – was a huge obstacle to China’s :”sil road” scheme and its plans to build up central Asian infrastructure and high speed rail with Russia, connecting Asia and Europe.

In that context, consider these two stories that many regular readers here noticed and passed along:

Chinese envoy travels to Saudi Arabia, Iran

Russia ready to invite Saudi, Iranian FMs for talks: Reports

This was of course an entirely predictable move, and expect more of the same. But for our high octane speculations of the day, I want to recall the recetn decisions of the Saudi regime to do two unprecedented things: (1) sell sovereign bonds, to make up for budget shortfalls due to the plunging price of oil, and (2) to take Aramco public, and sell shares in the oil and petroleum giant. There are all sorts of possibilities that these twin openings provide, for any country or group wanting to exercise influence over the internal and external policies of the desert kingdom.

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com

The Decline Of The Petrodollar? Iran & India Settle In Rupees – But…


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 9, 2016

A couple of years ago you might recall that the world watched as India and Iran agreed to settle some of their payments in Indian rupees rather than dollars. It was, I suggested, a symbolic act signaling more to come. Well, in this article shared by Mr. D T, it just came:

Just the Beginning: Iran, India Dump Petrodollar, Settle Oil Payments in Rupees

Note that the article is clear as to what is going on: trade between the two nations, which had been settled in part in rupees, is now going to be conducted bi-laterally entirely in rupees, do not pass go, no longer going to the Federal Reserve jail:

Iran and India have announced that they intend to settle all oustanding crude oil payments in rupees, as part of a joint strategy to dump the dollar and trade instead in national currencies. The Indian Express reports:

Ditching the dollar, Iran and India have agreed to settle all outstanding crude oil dues in rupees in preparation to future trade in their national currencies.

In other words(and reading between the lines a bit), the prior arrangement whereby some oil payments were settled in rupees worked well enough for both parties to agree to a total abandonment of the dollar, at least with respect to oil payments. And as the article also notes, such arrangements have geopolitical consequences:

This is truly a bold move by Iran, a country literally surrounded by American military bases. We shouldn’t forget what happened to Iraq after it announced that it was dumping the dollar.

The difference, of course, is that Iran has a little friend called “Russia”.

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com