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

Harvard & Yale Open Sharia Law Studies

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 12, 2017

Just when you think the assault on Western civilization by the crazed universities of America cannot possibly get any stupider or more insane, they step boldly on to the stage once again to demonstrate their sheer irrelevance and cultural treason:

Harvard University Launches Fellowships in Islamic Law to Influence U.S. Policy

Yale Establishes Islamic Law Center Thanks to $10M from Saudi Sharia-Banker, Alleged Bin Laden Financier

What I found intriguing here is that while the progressivist controlled corporate media of the left is still hollering to the heights about Russian attempts to influence the last election, I haven’t heard a peep about the foreign influence to manipulate the culture that the funding of a Sharia center at Yale by a Saudi banker might portend. Note in the second article the following:

Saleh Abdullah Kamel, a Saudi banker who is now worth billions of dollars thanks to his success with Sharia-compliant financing, has donated $10 million to Yale University as part of a successful effort to build an Islamic Law Center at the Ivy League school.

Noticeably left out of the press release is the fact that Mr. Kamel’s Dallah Al Baraka Group, for which he is the Chief Executive, has been investigated by U.S. officials for bankrolling al-Qaeda’s operations worldwide.

Moreover, the bank was founded by former al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden along with a group of Sudanese jihadists, the State Department has alleged, according to the Wall Street Journal.

And in the 1998 New York City trials of al-Qaeda members, witnesses testified that Mr. Kamel’s bank had previously transferred hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to al-Qaeda to help them buy an airplane, the report stated.

Additionally, Kamel’s father’s name appears on the “Golden Chain,” a list of alleged al-Qaeda funders that was confiscated by Bosnian authorities after raiding an al-Qaeda front group in 2002.

The new Yale Islamic Center becomes the latest of many Saudi-funded influence operations on American university campuses throughout the continental United States.

Is it any wonder that our universities no longer reflect American legal and cultural virtues, let alone western ones, or have anything good to say about the influence of Christianity or Renaissance humanism, or anything else that makes the West the “West”, when money from one of the most backward, corrupt, and inhuman and inhumane barbaric regimes on the planet are funding such nonsense?

Of course, the Yale article has the usual banal and cotton-mouthed pronouncements from scions of American quackademia justifying this “glorious generosity”:

“Mr. Kamel’s extraordinary generosity will open up exciting new opportunities for Yale Law School and for the entire university, said Yale President Peter Salovey. “The Abdullah S. Kamel Center for the Study of Islamic Law and Civilization will enhance research opportunities for our students and other scholars and enable us to disseminate knowledge and insights for the benefit of scholars and leaders all over the world.”

Professor Anthony Kronman, a new co-director of the Islamic Law Center, said of the school’s new addition:

“The contemporary challenges of Islamic law are broadly relevant to political events throughout the entire Islamic world and those are developments that are watched by a much larger audience of people who in many cases have not much knowledge at all of the history and traditions of Islamic law.”

“It’s the responsibility of universities to teach and instruct and that obligation applies with particular force where an issue or a subject tends to be viewed in an incomplete or inadequate or even caricatured way. There the responsibility to teach and enlighten is even stronger,” he added.

Let there be no mistake: with Saudi funding behind this latest nonsense, there will be no academic freedom to question the “glories” of Sharia, there will be no attempt to invite former Muslims, and scholars, such as Christian Luxemburg, or Muslims who recognize and advocate a non-political Islam, or scholars whose critical scholarship questions the whole narrative of Islamic orthodoxy, such as Christian Luxemburg, who has to write under a pseudonym to avoid the fatwahs of death sentences because of the radical and sweeping conclusions he (or she) came to. That genuine academic freedom and critique will have to continue to be done where it is being done now, in the free and independent media; the corporate controlled propaganda organs – with but a few exceptions – will not do it. And the big name institutions of American quackademia will continue to slide further into the morass of irrelevance.

In short, this move is a discredit to moderate voices within the Muslim world itself, to disenfranchise them from having any voice or forum whatsoever, and its a disgrace to…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

About 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”.

…And In The Netherlands: Geert Wilders Convicted Of…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 12, 2016

In the Netherlands, a blow may have been struck against the rising tide of “populism” as a Dutch court convicted Geert Wilders, popular opposition leader who has been challenging the rising tide of Islamic immigration to Europe. Here’s the story as reported by Reuters:

Dutch politician Wilders convicted of discrimination against Moroccans

I want to concentrate on the following lines:

Judges on Friday convicted Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders of discrimination against Moroccans but levied no punishment in a ruling that could influence elections just three months away.

It was the first time that Wilders, whose anti-Islam comments have forced him to live under 24-hour protection for a decade, has been convicted for his outspoken views.

Wilders, who is leading in some polls before national parliamentary elections on March 15, said he would appeal the “totally insane” verdict and accused the court of bias.

The charges against Wilders stem from a 2014 campaign rally, when he led a group of supporters to chant they wanted “Fewer! Fewer! Fewer!” Moroccans in the Netherlands. A smiling Wilders concluded: “we’re going to take care of that.”

Reading the decision of a three-judge panel, Presiding Judge Hendrik Steenhuis said “no one is above the law”, including politicians. Wilder had planned the inflammatory remarks beforehand and insulted the entire group of people of Moroccan origin in the Netherlands, he said.

“If a politician crosses the line, that doesn’t mean free speech is being restricted,” he said. “A crime cannot be protected by the right to free speech.”

In a videotaped response to the verdict, which he did not attend in person, Wilders said: “I will never be silenced”.

He said the ruling was an attempt to “neutralize the leader of the largest and most popular opposition party in the Netherlands.”

Moroccan-Dutch organizations welcomed the verdict for drawing a clear line about the limits of free speech.

“This ruling protects minorities in our country from the racist poison that is seeping into our society,” said anti-discriminatiin platform NBK, which previously filed a failed lawsuit against Wilder in 2007.

Once again, the establishment and corporate controlled media is completely blind to what Mr. Wilders has been saying: questioning the core concepts of Islam is not “racism”, especially when Mr. Wilders has taken especial care to make clear he is not opposing Islamic immigration, but rather, Islamicization of European culture by a refusal to acknowledge secular law. For example…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About 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”.

Is The Game Plan Revealed? Germany Contemplates Conscription, Domestic…

 IS THE GAME PLAN REVEALED? GERMANY CONTEMPLATES CONSCRIPTION, DOMESTIC ...
Source:GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
August 29, 2016

Many people, including many in Germany and the rest of Europe, shared this article with me, and frankly, I find it both disturbing and darkly revealing:

Germany Debates Putting “Troops On Streets” To Protect Against Terrorism

The opening paragraphs say it all here:

The quiet German militarization continues to escalate.

One day after Germany’s DPA broke the news that the Merkel government is considering “bringing back nationwide conscription in times of crisis”, such as situations in which the country needs to “defend NATO’s external borders”, strongly hinting at the possibility of a future war, which in turn followed this weekend’s shocking announcement that Germans should prepare to stockpile several days of food and water “in case of an attack of catastrophe” as part of the country’s revised “Civil Defense Concept, today NBC reports that “Germany Debates Putting Troops on Streets to Protect Against ISIS.

To be sure, plans to involve soldiers in counterterrorism operations. and the suggestion troops could also be used to beef up security in public places, have proved controversial in a country only seven decades “removed from totalitarian rule that’s still grappling with guilt from the Nazi era.” However, Wolfgang Bosbach, a lawmaker from Merkel’s CDU party, dismissed an such concerns.

“During the recent terror threat in Munich the German armed forces, and also the military police, were put on alert,” he told NBC News. “They have been deployed in other crises, so why should the military not help with domestic security as well?”

There is, of course, push-back, and rightly so, from concerned German politicians:

Yet despite the seeming acceleration by Germany to militarize at any cost, some more sover voices did emerge, such as that of Christian Moelling, a security expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, told NBC News that conservative politicians appeared to be trying to capitalize on recent events as they sought to achieve their longstanding goal of allowing the military to deploy within the country’s borders.

He noted that since the end of World War II, high hurdles had been established governing how the armed forces can be used and was skeptical that any push to change that would be successful.

“To use Germany’s military for interior security, including the use of force, would necessitate a large majority for a constitutional change, and this majority doesn’t exist,” Moelling said, adding that at least two-thirds of parliamentarians would have to approve such a measure.

It can, however, quickly be achieved should there be a few more terrorist attacks on German soil, which will promptly provide the needed cover if not to change the constitution, than to implement an indefinite state of emergency, bypassing such pesky things as laws. As a reminder, France has had once since last November.

And there you have it: just create so many “incidents” by allowing the “eager-to-kill” refugee a free hand to do so and, voila, decree and state of emergency.

But what I find intriguing here is that the root problem – flooding Europe with non-assimilating, and in some cases, radicalized, refugees – is not being addressed. Rather, it is being used as the crisis of opportunity to (1) expand the military (in this case, Germanys’), (2) expand and militarize domestic police, and (3) rule under emergency. In other words, the refugee crisis serves as the modern Reichstag fire.

Of course, Chancellorin Merkel is herself largely responsible for the mess, and one doesn’t hear or see any indication from her that she wants to change her policy or has any desire to do so, and this suggests that the real goal all along was to create the primary conditions for the creation of a vastly expanded military – remember that German industrial and defense leaders want to triple the size of Germany’s military by 2025 – and the conditions for its domestic use.

This much seems obvious, at least in Germany’s case. So where’s the high octane speculation here? As most regular readers here know, and if you’ve been following my interviews over the years, I’ve also strongly suspected that the Islamic world was being “set up,” and used as a crisis of opportunity not only to delay and marginalize the voices of reform within it, but also to drive domestic policy in the West. In the latter case, it should be recalled that France and Germany both have committed to the creation of a joint European-wide military and certain corporate mergers have already transpired in aid of this agenda. So where does the refugee crisis fit in? It fits because it does two things: (1) it creates a “counter-culture” against which Europeans can unite to defend “European culture,” i.e., it serves the creation of a European cultural identity, which currently the EU lacks, and (2) it creates the conditions for the expansion of national militaries and their integration. I’m relatively confident that the game plan is being revealed here, for the very simple reason that the problem these measures are designed to address could be  more simply, and possibly more cheaply, addressed simply by closing European borders. Europe, in short, is being used as a test bed.[Bold Emphasis Added In Bottom 5 Paragraphs]

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
_________________________________________________________________

Profile photo of 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”.

Manipulative Idiocy Of New Gingrich’s Attempt To Demonize Islam & Make War

us-army-tank
Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 18, 2016

Newt Gingrich Argues U.S. Should Conduct Shariah Test … Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House and a finalist to become Donald J. Trump’s running mate, said in an interview on Fox News that Muslims in the United States should be subject to a test to see if they support Shariah law.  “If they believe in Shariah,” Mr. Gingrich said Thursday night, referring to the legal code of Islam based on the Quran, “they should be deported.”  – New York Times

Has Newt Gingrich actually talked to a Muslim?

Shariah law, as was explained to us long ago, is purposefully harsh to ensure that believers are warned not to transgress. Its intention is moral, not punitive.

The bar is set very high. For instance, it takes FOUR male believers to make an accusation of adultery. They actually have to witness the act. They have to be in the room.

Here, from Islamisweb.net:

In the case of adultery, Islam requires four witnesses to testify that they have seen the offence, or else, a clear and confirmed confession by the perpetrators.

It may be suggested, then, that the punishment is unreal and unenforceable, which renders it ineffective as a deterrent.

Punishment is not the basis of the Islamic approach; its basis is prevention, education and cultivating people’s finer feelings and consciences so that they refrain from even contemplating this offence.

The harshness of Shariah law is visited upon believers by sects like the Wahhabi.  Wahhabi is a “mad” religion as we described it HERE.

It is this fundamentalist Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia is busily exporting around the Middle East … Wahhabism … contributes to the polarization of Islamic society generally.

[Western] elites, doing everything within their power to encourage a wider (phony) “war on terror,” surely have no compunction about supporting Saudi authoritarianism and the Saud family’s very own crazy religion.

And thus it is that one can argue the Americans and British are behind the dissemination of extremist Wahhabism in all its intolerance and brutality …

While making noises about liberating women in the Middle East and Africa, Western elites continue to prop up the Saud reign and its Wahhabi state religion …  

This is truly the kind of psychopathology that can emerge only after societies have been corrupted for decades, for centuries. Unfortunately for Saudi citizens, their society has indeed been under attack for that long.

Does Gingrich not understand that the City is ultimately behind Wahhabism?

Does he not understand that Sunni Islam is fairly democratic, participative and peaceful?

He’s not a stupid person. He writes books and regularly opens his mouth for a living.

Just yesterday we wrote about the West – London’s City and the CIA – were behind the creation and expansion of Islamic terrorism. HERE.

This is well known. Gingrich must know it.

Shariah law’s fundamental intention is cautionary. And the Islamic extremists that regularly enforce it are Western inventions.

A war between Islam and the West is being fomented.

It is, however, a bankers’ war, ultimately, as every war is a BANKER’S WAR.

Gingrich later tried to walk back his remarks but it really doesn’t matter.

His intention is clear. He is preying on people’s ignorance to raise his profile. He will apparently say anything. Do anything.

More:

During his nine-minute interview with Sean Hannity, Mr. Gingrich said: “Western civilization is in a war. We should, frankly, test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Shariah they should be deported. Shariah is incompatible with Western civilization …

“We need to be fairly relentless about defining who our enemies are. Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony and they should go to jail.

“Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felony; it should be closed down immediately.”

… “That’s a powerful statement,” Mr. Hannity responded. “I agree wholeheartedly.”

What is wrong with these two? Just like the rest of the Western elite establishment, they are interested in manipulations not in truth.

They are promoting war because that is today’s agenda.

They only wish to reserve a place at the head of the procession.

Gingrich will never fight in the wars he is promoting.

The people he works for – or wants to work for again – have manufactured a global depression.

Now they are desperately trying to create wars to distract people from the economic ruin.

The end result is to be increased globalization experienced by the survivors and led by a handful of banking manipulators.

If war is coming, real war waged against China, Russia or consolidated regions of the Middle East, then it will be the responsibility of those who choose to use their positions to propagandize military interventions.

Conclusion: Most people in this world are peaceful. It takes a lot of organization to induce people to pick up guns and shoot them at strangers.  It is unconscionable to lie to generate this sort of result. Those lying are doing the evil work of a handful of individuals who use war as a tool to line their own pockets. Few words or phrases, unfortunately, are strong enough to condemn this process.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com