An initial article of ours on the issue of the Islamic resurgence in the Middle East was entitled, "Western Elites Secretly Still Building Islam." You can see it here.
At the time it caused a bit of controversy but we believed it to be accurate. And it doesn't seem any less so today. As we have learned from covering these events, much of what governments and think tanks state about current events is actually the OPPOSITE of reality.
So it makes sense. If Western elites explain that the West is at war with Islam, you ought to lift the covers to find out if the West is actually building up the threat it claims to be trying to eradicate.
See, the elite's dominant social themes are only implemented for one reason, it seems: to create world government. Anything that aids in this effort is promoted relentlessly. And it certainly – regularly – helps the elites to have an ongoing war, a big one, too.
It's a two-part process. In order to move toward global governance with all due speed the Anglosphere power elite has to create a growing global economic depression, or so it seems. (Out of chaos, order, etc. …)
But when young people have neither jobs nor hope, you might run into trouble. You might end up destabilizing your OWN back yard. And for this reason, war becomes a very attractive option.
War is, in fact, the best possible solution if you're trying to continue to build a new world order. No room for protest, really. It kills many of the best and brightest and generally puts unruly youth into a kind of military confinement where they are watched and drilled rigorously.
Within this context, then, we're not surprised that militarism is on the rise. Islam is obviously the preferred target and the West's antagonism to Islam has been growing for a decade now.
Yes, the West is in a sense at war with Islam, or at least its more "radical" elements (supposedly), Al Qaeda. But as we've pointed out numerous times, this seems to us and to many others a kind of phony war.
In fact, the US Congress just this last week is trying to pass a law basically making it a criminal offense for Americans to criticize the legitimacy of their "war" with Al Qaeda. Of course, America's never formally declared war but that doesn't seem to bother the esteemed politicians who voted for this latest bill. It really is a pretty far-fetched scenario ….
This US-produced war on terror has lost so much legitimacy that Senators are trying to make it illegal to DOUBT it. You can see a previous article on the subject here: NDAA, The Smell of Fear.
Of course, there's plenty of tension to go around:but I'd make the argument it may be manipulated tension. How is that almost every military engagement being entered into by America and NATO has, potentially, as an end result, the establishment of more and more Islamic governments.
We've been covering this for a year now – and it's happening. Back in October, Tunisia's Islamist Ennahda party won 90 seats in the country's 217-seat assembly. This was a group banned under former president Ben Ali's regime. Now the Ennahda party has three times as many seats as the largest secularist party in the republic. And here comes Egypt. Is this any coincidence?
How many secular countries have the US and NATO destabilized now? Here's a list: The Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Nigeria and Iraq – all countries that might have been considered secular or perhaps Christian, and all are either up-ended or under attack.
Even the Lord's Resistance Army that US President Barack Obama just decided to try to eradicate is putatively Christian. And under UN auspices, yet another Islamic state was created when Sudan was basically divided into an Islamic North and a Christian South. The power likely remains with the North.
Of course, it could be coincidence, I suppose. But the US especially needs an outside enemy because it suffers from numerous conflicting trends within the larger electorate. Given the economic problems that the US (and the West) faces, war or at least military tension is bound to be seen as one solution by the political elite. Tunisia I just mentioned. But just this week, Egypt seems to have fallen into place. A Reuters article makes the case with a good deal of breathlessness:
Ultra-conservative Islamists may have won 20 to 30 percent of the vote in the first leg of Egypt's three-stage parliamentary vote, an outcome that has surprised and alarmed many Egyptians. They are worried about what this might mean for freedoms and tolerance in the Arab world's most populous nation.
Salafis look certain to emerge as a vocal bloc in the first legislature since Hosni Mubarak was deposed, confirming the historic changes under way since the removal from power of a man who dealt with Islamists mostly as enemies of the state.
Their influence over officialdom could reach further still, depending on cooperation with other Islamists also doing well in the election, namely the long-established Muslim Brotherhood which looks set to win more seats than any other group.
Their role will also hinge on the system of government that emerges from a transitional period steered by the army generals who took over from Mubarak. The military has been silent on the election result, urging Egyptians to vote but not taking sides.
Thanks to what we call the Internet Reformation, the Anglosphere power elite is under pressure as never before. And the best way to alleviate pressure is to start a war, or better yet create an implacable enemy.
Back when the Gutenberg Press began to make a difference in terms of informing people about their lives, religion and culture, the number of wars and the duration of their timelines seems to have risen dramatically. What is called the Peasant War went on for some 30 years across Europe – and yet today one might be hard-pressed to explain exactly what it was about in all its permutations.
When the history of the current era is written – if it is written from the standpoint of the current elites – I doubt historians will find it any more feasible to explain how these wars got started or for what reasons. War is politics by other means. What we're seeing today seems to bear out that point again. Doesn't make it any more pleasant.