News & Analysis
Western Elites Secretly Still Building Islam?
It is clear that what is currently taking place in Tunisia is not a popular revolution. There were no clear demands from the demonstrators, there was no organized opposition leading the masses, and even Islamic voices have so far been silent. [The fact that there was no full scale revolution] is a positive sign...so what actually happened, and led to President Ben Ali going into exile? Of course, this pressing question will continue to be asked during the coming phase, and may take a long time to answer, considering that we are now facing conflicting information, and Tunisia remains a country that is somewhat ‘closed' towards almost all of the Arab world, and its media. Our satellite channels seemed uninterested in reporting genuine facts. – India's Issy
Dominant Social Theme: The Muslims are coming and must be confronted. Never mind that we provide the funding.
Free-Market Analysis: Is the war on terror a success? The Anglo-American elite needs an enemy if the authoritarianism that is rising in the West is to continue – because despotism (and globalism) is more easily created when there is an outside enemy. But fighting against 100 Al Qaeda soldiers in Afghanistan is not anybody's idea of a substantive threat. And the Taliban are evidently and obviously fighting an occupying force.
What if the powers-that-be had decided to do what they could to expand the Muslim threat – and thus expand (in the Western mind anyway) the specter of resurgent, militant Islam? A cynical idea isn't it, dear reader? It is merely speculation but there are reasons to explore it further. Bear with us.
Just yesterday, the Bell offered an article that was somewhat skeptical of the "Jasmine Revolution" playing out in Tunisia. Since we presented our speculation others have weighed in (in the Blogosphere) with even more cynical perspectives. There have been reports that the Tunisian revolution was actually a CIA-related operation related to securing oil supplies for the US and furthering its strategic dominance in terms of the larger "great game."
We believe such explanations are somewhat overwrought. The CIA does not call every tune. Oil, in fact, is present everywhere on Earth and need not be secured by the West via revolution. The Tunisians evidently and obviously were not well-disposed to their (former) iron-handed ruler. And yet ... revolutions can be manipulated and often are. In fact, Tunisia's now-deposed president President Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali was firmly anti-Muslim and thus the Tunisian revolution seems to fit into a larger pattern of further Muslim-ization of that part of the world.
Is it a deliberate pattern? We would argue it might be, and that it is one that now serves the purposes of Western powers-that-be. The Anglosphere is notoriously unsentimental when it comes to overthrowing allies in pursuit of its large one-world objectives. Those who have ruled with America's backing for decades may suddenly find they are unsupported in their further prospects.
Where is the evidence? Again, we note the pattern. In the strife-torn West African nation of Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire) the West is supporting Alassane Ouattara, a former prime minister, banker and leader of the opposition over incumbent president, Laurent Gbagbo. Ouattara is Muslim; Gbagbo is Christian. The West advocates for the Muslim-linked faction over the Christian one.
Then there is the referendum in the Sudan, one of Africa's largest states and most Northern ones. The referendum, being conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, aims to split the country, creating a predominantly Muslim Northern Sudan. According to CNN, President Omar al-Bashir has reportedly said that if Southern Sudan votes in favor of separation, "sharia will become the main source of Sudan's Constitution, Islam the state religion and Arabic the official language." The West, under the auspices of the UN, is in the process of creating a fundamentalist Muslim state. Finally, there is the sorry saga of the War in Kosovo in which the West backed Albanian Muslims over Serbian Christians.
All three of these examples might be termed "simplistic" in that there were (and are) many complexities involved in these confrontations that have nothing to do with religious affiliation. Nonetheless – inarguably – on three separate occasions, Western powers-that-be have thrown their weight behind Islam. Coincidence?
There is more to support the idea that the Anglosphere is covertly supporting resurgent Islam. The West has surely manipulated the price of oil to enrich Muslim countries for decades. And in return, Saudi Arabia has first created and then funded Wahhabism, a fierce fundamental strain of Islam that has found fertile soil in the Afghan-Pakistan region and in North Africa. Thus, we seem to see again that the West is funding the very enemies its leaders claim to be fighting against.
Dubai and the Arab Emirates should be mentioned within this paradigm. These Western-affiliated, Muslim countries have, in our view, been positioned to provide a "middle ground" between Islam and the West. They represent the fruition of an ongoing Hegelian dialectic – the model for a Westernized Islam. Al Jazeera is funded out of another tiny, Western-centric country, Qatar, and we have noted that initially Al Jazeera was staffed by BBC journos; Al Jazeera, far from being a radical Islamic mouthpiece, is in a sense another Western-controlled news outlet. You can see a previous article here:
Those in the West, even close mainstream observers of the ongoing "war on terror," live with this cognitive dissonance without showing much consciousness of it – which is strange itself. You would think those with degrees and pedigrees in this area would ask themselves why the West is supporting the world's leading promoters of militant Islam all the while proclaiming undying resistance to "terrorists."
The Western power elite always utilizes the Hegelian dialectic – the creation of two sides to an argument so that the resolution is resolved as much as possible on elite terms. But while most observers of the elite believe the dialectic applies to rhetoric, the facts-on-the-ground show us clearly that the dialectic is applied to conflict as well. Thus, there is significant evidence that Wall Street funded the "Red" faction of the Russian revolution that led to the formation of the USSR and the USSR in turn helped fund the creation of Communist China.
It is now well-acknowledged that Operation Gladio in Europe (a CIA black op) produced a slew of violent incidents and rising fear among Western middle classes that the "Red Plague" was spreading. This was no doubt helpful in the creation of the meme of a "united Europe" that would provide an antidote to violence.
Of course, today Europe is "united" – but that unification only seems to spawned yet more violence – and this is possibly a larger problem. Wars and revolution in the Internet era are not nearly so controllable as they once were. The risk is that having begun the conflagration and now perhaps encouraging its growth, the elite will end up burning itself, though how badly remains to be seen.
Conclusion: We are proposing a new stage in the manipulated war on terror. Having built up the Middle East through enormous cash infusions, the Anglosphere is continually expanding the role of fundamental Islam and may even be prepared to overthrow old and trusted allies to do so. The war on terror so far has not proven very terrible (except to Afghan and Iraqi citizens) but if the Jasmine revolution "spreads" throughout the Middle East, resurgent, fundamentalist Islam may indeed become a reality. All this is highly speculative, of course, and merely an exercise analyzing elite promotions. The reality may be far more mundane – and simply the result of current events with no additional resonance or meaning. And yet ...
Edited on date of posting
Posted by LloydMiller on 03/04/12 12:33 PM
THIS IS NOT THE DOMINANT SOCIAL MEME: The Muslims are coming and must be confronted. Never mind that we provide the funding. The DOMINANT MEME is they are coming, but don't worry! Those CONFRONTING are the ones NOT UNDER CONTROL OF THE DOMINANT ELITE!
Posted by LloydMiller on 03/04/12 12:31 PM
Read George Bernard Shaw on Islam. He thought it tailor made for the Fabian much sought One World Government. The Rockefeller / OPEC / Saudi camarilla says Islam is OK! Don't worry as the Muslim Brotherhood sweeps the board in the underdeveloped world and fast breeding Muslim hordes penetrate the West.
Posted by Himagain on 12/26/11 11:07 PM
"Divide and Rule" has been the mainstay of all masculine(warrior)-dominated States since the very first wars on civilisations(feminine(trade)- dominated States in Real History.
As Kylneth pointed many decades ago: To understand the labrynthian psychopolitics of Islam, it is far easier to simply study the now fairly well-disclosed history of the original Christian church, Catholicism, as it was in the 12th Century C.E., instead of becoming mired in the propaganda of modern Islam.
Islam, also fairly precisely modelled on the extreme violence of Judaism,particularly toward females, is at the same stage of social development of the Catholic church in the 12th century.
Until literally forced to change by the radical out-of-the-blue Protestant renegades who capitalised on the specific weaknesses of the "Mother Church" and who began to treat females as people and forgo the absurd divine claims of obviously very human church oligarchs,it, like Islam, was unchanged from its identical, violent, tribal origins.
It was forced to mellow over a few centuries and except for being hoist on its own petard, would have advanced itself with the help of the actual denied majority - the mothers and thinkers.
As it becomes obvious to any serious historian quite quickly today, it was always the rise of the women who created the non-warrior, civilised systems, which unfortunately are easy prey for the masculine-dominant and thus always violent, warrior tribes who literally cannot produce, but only destroy and steal - like the infamous Muslim claim to the zero.
The real fear that any good aetiologist/psychologist has today is that this quite socially-crazed phenomenon - intently murdering its own members as you read this, have no moderating(feminine) influence at all. None.
They are breeding at an alarming rate, because of their iron-control on the females and literally any day soon, will have access to real Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Not ones created within their own stunted illiterate society, but simply easily stolen, or purchased on the open market from idiots (obviously other warrior males).
They *will* use them - just think "martydom" and the Koran's promise of sixteen young virgins for a martyr's death.
That's why thinking people fear the runaway problem of the many dangerous splinters that make up Islam - anything but reasonable, anything but peaceful and becoming more dangerous daily, as Our Owners play with a fire that they have no conception of its danger.
Posted by victorbarney on 12/03/11 01:26 PM
Glad I got you Daily Bell, again! You still are the most informative source of media out there! Just wanted to add that according to Revelation, our Savior will return to fight and destroy a caliphate of Islamic nations called the "Beast", so I realize that we are not going to win this war at this time. Also wanted to add that as England, America is really named "Israel" of the seed of Joseph(Gen. 48:16), but do not know it because we broke the "Sabbaths Covenant" that came with the Name Israel.
However, I bet Islam knows who we really are! Right now there is an unspoken caliphate between Islam and Marxism, both Anti-Christ in belief, to destroy Israel, which is u.s. and England, but includes Judah by the way now calling itself "Israel, but not in truth or righteousness." Watch! Oh, Yes, England did become the greatest civil empire as promised, so all that was left for u.s. was to produce the Anti-Christ(Marxist over u.s.) of Revelation, chapter 11. Did I also mention that it was u.s. the placed the "forbidden foreigner" over u.s. as specified in Deuteronmy 17:15? Well, there was nothing left for u.s. to do, I suppose. Watch!
Posted by IndianaJohn on 09/14/11 08:33 AM
The articulate and thoughtful commenters here just can't write; third world migration is an assault on White Man. Sorry elves, but someone has to do it.
It seems to me that the (hidden) ruling elite fears White Man.
Reply from The Daily Bell
The hidden, ruling elite so far as we can tell IS white.
Posted by Emin on 02/20/11 06:06 PM
The grand strategy is as follow:
Uncle Sam needs jihadist. He will support them like they did in Afganistan against the USSR. Now the Anglophone will support them to fight IndoChina not Europe not US not Israel.
According to Islamic scripture the anti-christ will come from the Indian region. The final battle is between the believers (of abrahams faith) represented by ISLAM (christianity is history) and non belivers (pagan faith)represented by USA (Zionism, power elite, money power, illuminati,capitalism,... whatever you call it).
"Who rules Kudus (Jerusalem) rules the world".
This battle will decide the ruler.
The faith "from war comes good" has the lead, the muslims will meet horrible times. They will envy the holocost victims. What should a muslim do during this war?
Posted by Cardinalsfan on 02/19/11 08:42 PM
But surely with demographic trends as they are Europe's indigenous population will be the minority within the next generation. This surely cannot be favourable for the Angloelite. It's almost leading to a Civil war, is this part of the plan?
Reply from The Daily Bell
Who knows what the plan is? What is certain is that the Anglosphere is at war with its own middle classes and there is no reason to believe that tomorrow's policies will be any kinder to average workers (and even professionals) than today's.
Posted by Rich on 02/19/11 09:12 AM
This is a great thread with good counter argument. My question to you all is what the role of overwhelming Europe and Scandanavia with hordes of non-integrating muslims plays in the Elites future plans? I can't help but think its strategic in fuelling the war effort. I apologise if this question is somewhat vague.
Reply from The Daily Bell
The elite has encouraged these Islamic demographical flows to increase tension in Europe and raise antipathies.
Posted by Senior Elsie on 02/06/11 03:58 AM
In May 22, 1991 The Muslim Brotherhood presented "An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" stating "...work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within...".
On June 4, 2009, in a speech to the Middle East Forum in NYC, a leading authority on Islamic extremist networks had this to say, "Obama's downplaying of the Islamist threat exemplifies the "unraveling of the consensus that started to develop about the dangers of radical Islam" after 9/11. This threat goes well beyond terrorism, extending to a nonviolent, stealth jihad of "infiltrating or subverting or intimidating ..or changing the American system by affecting our values, such as freedom of the press and freedom of speech."
Can the infiltrating be so successful that it is influencing US policies to be pro-Islam? Your Comments, please.
Reply from The Daily Bell
The West has been deliberately building up militant Islam for at least 50 years and maybe a century. The Anglosphere seeks an enemy. Islam is number one; China, possibly, number two.
Posted by Cu on 01/28/11 07:23 PM
Interesting article... Controlling the canal would be their reason to have Egypt again... Just a thought ? Check out todays telegraph in uk.... "Us secretly backs uprising" follow the last link at their site... The document is published...
Hey I read somewhere that the king of kings bible consists of 3 books old and new testament and the 3 book the Quran ... We are all one! There are distortions in the separate issues.... Wouldn't mind a copy for the full picture.... It's not a religious thing is a prophesy folks...
The uprisings seems to be non religious... Maybe we will all work it out in time... To me it's about control and torture and piss poor conditions in life... We know that ?
I know we cannot survive by eating money and drinking oil... So grow your own and share it out...
Posted by Hubert on 01/24/11 12:44 PM
Then wait for them when they become the majority in the west via breeding and then we will see if the moderate islamic masses will ask their minority of integrists to remain faithful to the ideals of democracy and freedom of choice and religion. What the western masses cannot understand is that in islam the most virulent and fundamentalist ALWAYS gets the last word
Posted by Hubert on 01/24/11 06:03 AM
As for the Sudan the whole fight with the south was from the beginning due to the northern desire to impose sharia law on the whole of sudan. Muslims want the whole world my friend and they do not need the elites or the US to plot that for them. The need to stop them is a real and present one. I live in the region and i know how muslims think and behave once they become the majority. You better back your elites on that one.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Muslims want the whole world my friend.
So it was the Muslims who funded the USSR and aided Red China, fought two world wars and then endless serial wars and are now fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and contemplating a further confrontation with Iran? ... The West has not ceased its warring for 100 years. But you blame Islam.
Posted by Hubert on 01/24/11 06:00 AM
Then came the 1973 war and the surge of oil prices ,the saudis and gulf states found themselves showered with tons of cash.The only way to recycle these potentially dangerous sums was to strike a deal with them to reinvest this money in US bonds in exchange for regime protection and use the excess to fund islamic fundamentalism to continue the battle against the soviets (who provided the best opportunity by invading afghanistan). The saudis gained predominance in the muslim world and the americans found a costless way to ruin the USSR.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Seems to us that you're confirming the point ...
Posted by Hubert on 01/24/11 05:56 AM
the second time was when Nasser sent troops to support the yemenite revolution. Its then that the saudis fearing a second demise and probably advised by the USA to combat Nasser's socialism with the resurgence of wahhabism. For the Saudis it was a need to fight back egypt and only egypt back then.
Posted by Hubert on 01/24/11 05:45 AM
Sound analysis but faulty deductions. Humans are much more complex to be just automated puppets and local desires and self plotting cannot be discarded.
Wahhabism: You cannot conclude that the west let the saudis get the petrol money to fund the resurgence of wahhabism. Wahhabism has existed since the early 1800's. It was fought and destroyed by Mohamed Ali of egypt for the first time creating the first fear of the egyptians by the saudis.
Posted by Morgan Gillette on 01/20/11 11:34 AM
I think that while you write quite well, you have a very thin link of facts that you are drawing conclusions from. It appears your imagination is very good. Have you ever spent any time in the Sudan, Tunisia, the middle east any where?
Reply from The Daily Bell
We cautioned it was a simplistic argument, an observation, merely, based on prior examination of world events. You are welcome to disagree, though you provide far fewer evidences than the Bell!
Posted by Historyscoper on 01/19/11 08:42 PM
Sorry, but Islam started long before there was a CIA or U.S. It's an ancient evil that spreads by war and nurtures warlords who get a holy aura. Promoting polygamy, its adherents outbreed everybody else. If the CIA could make it go poof it would, but instead the belief in an Allah who is in control of eternal rewards and punishments makes determined Islamics fight against all odds. The CIA thought it was using bin Laden to fight the Soviets, only to get double-crossed, and hence your analysis of Tunisia stinks like rotten tuna fish. Read the Historyscoper's Islam Watch Blog for the latest news on Tunisia and all of Islam.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Wow, you are obviously a literate and perceptive person, Historyscoper. You sure "tell it like it is."
Islam is ancient evil, you suggest ... Funny we never thought of it that way. So here are three questions for you since you read so many articles about Islam and are so perceptive.
1. Did Bin Laden and his backward followers really blow up the World Trade Towers from caves in Afghanistan? Why did he deny it?
2. Why didn't the Marines ever find Bin Laden's six-story caves with reinforced bunkers and high-tech transmitting equipment? They looked for months. Is it that well hidden?
3. Why was Don Rumsfeld's Youtube video - the one of him explaining this high-tech cave using a flip chart on national TV - removed only days after we referred to it?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 01/19/11 05:38 PM
Second try at a reply.
We know that the agent provocateur has existed in all coercive political actions throughout history, this has been proven time and again. Therefore, we may conclude such an entity exists at any level of political action involving coercion. It follows then that your thesis must be true if we can prove there is an entity coercing the world population.
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 01/19/11 05:10 PM
We know that agent provocateurs exist, this has been documented many times. I believe this takes your analysis out of the hypothesis/theory phase; we can treat it as fact.
Posted by MetaCynic on 01/19/11 12:07 PM
In earlier articles, DB argued that the Anglo-sphere's military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan was more about subduing and domesticating Islam, the world's remaining wild west, than about accessing oil or raw materials. The implication being that they, the Muslims, must become more like us in order to be smoothly assimilated into the new world order.
Assuming that that is the grand strategy, would it then make sense for the PE to deliberately inject and cultivate radical Islam as that would further spread the Islamic wild west and delay the arrival of the PE's utopia " one world government?
Even if the PE were opportunistically meddling in what appears to be a spontaneous uprising in Tunisia, would they be covertly backing Islamic fundamentalism since it already doesn't resonate with the relatively laid back majority Tunisian Muslims?
The PE definitely do need a formidable enemy in order to justify the growing authoritarianism in the West. Yet, it's clear to those who wish to see that Islam poses no domestic existential threat to the U.S. If only one percent of America's 9 million Muslims were possessed with a suicidal hatred of the West and its culture, that would represent a pool of 90,000 individuals busy at wreaking all kinds of havoc within the nation's borders. However, except for a few three stooges like episodes, Islamic terrorism has been absent in America since 9/11.
So, does radical Islam have much traction left as a bogeyman for the West especially as the internet is opening people's eyes to the contrived nature of this "threat"?
Reply from The Daily Bell
We never suggested that the PE's strategy was "sane" or workable in the Internet era, only speculated based on evidence at hand that this was what they were up to.