Hundreds of Iraqis took to the streets on Friday to demonstrate against a lack of basic services, the latest in a series of protests that have swept the country as turmoil rocks other parts of the Arab world. Iraq has been slow to get back on its feet almost eight years after the US-led invasion. In Baghdad, hundreds of protesters marched under the watchful eye of the Iraqi Army to the heavily-fortified Green Zone calling for an improvement in basic services. – Indian Express
Dominant Social Theme: Let's ignore Iraq. It's a Democracy now. Nothing happening there. Good …
Free-Market Analysis: Iraq is the forgotten war. Even amidst the chaos swirling around developing countries throughout the world, the Western mainstream media for the most part ignores Iraq. And perhaps one day – sooner rather than later – it will have its own re-revolution (see article excerpt above); not one to welcome in regulatory democracy (that's already being tried, and wretchedly) but an Islamic Shia revolution. The Shias are Persian Islamists and the Iranian theocratic state is Shia. Iraq is mostly Shia and any uprising would likely – eventually – result in a Shia theocracy.
In fact, destabilization of existing regimes is taking place all over. As we've now documented (along with other alternative news sites on the ‘Net) it does not appear to be an accident. The scope of this article, then, runs far beyond Iraq, the status of which we have used merely for introductory purposes. In the rest of this article, we shall explore further the astoundingly ambitious effort underway by Western powers-that-be to foment civic unrest not just in the Middle East or Africa but around the world – and reasons why they may be doing so. The Anglo-American elite apparently plans to replicate the Egyptian revolution not just in the Middle east but worldwide via the use of the Internet and swelling youth demographics. See the following article:
The result of these machinations may not be "regulatory democracies" but Islamic republics – in the long term anyway. There's ample evidence that Iran has something like this in mind. The website Iranian.Com recently posted a short article entitled "Iran's Ahmadinejad claims ownership of Mideast 'divine awakening'." It went on to report that, "Iranians marked the 32nd anniversary of their Islamic revolution on Friday, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claiming that Iran was the vanguard of a popular and divine awakening now under way ‘in every corner of this planet'."
Of course every corner of the planet, realistically means Iraq and perhaps parts of Afghanistan. Most of the rest of the Arab world (and other parts of the globe) are largely Sunni, so it is doubtful that Shia Iran (Persia) would make much progress there. Of course we've written about this before, in an article entitled The Rise of Iran. Then we speculated (September 2010) that …
For the Western power elite (from our point of view) it is Mission Accomplished, at least in a certain, limited sense. The Iranian and Taliban strains of Islam are fairly severe (more so than say Shia Sufism) and between them incorporate a critical mass of perhaps 400 million. While this population is considerably less truculent (in an organized sense) than the erstwhile Soviet Union, it provides the critical mass necessary to generate an "enemy" that the Western mainstream press can continually identify and demonize.
In an era when the truth-telling of the Internet is continually destabilizing the elite's fear-based promotional propaganda, the erection of a believable and even formidable enemy is of great importance from the Western elite's point of view. It provides a rationale for increased authoritarianism, justifies the West's increased use of spy-technologies (which are mostly domestically aimed) and provides a rationale for continued military-industrial spending.
Seen from this point of view, the West's incursions into Iran and Afghanistan become comprehensible at a fundamental level as well. Saddam Hussein's regime was fundamentally a nationalist one, but now with Iran's growing influence in the country, the political structure has been overtaken by religious calculations. The theocratical elements of Iran's Shia revolution have been spread not only into Iraq but also into Afghanistan.
In light of recent events, we revisited the issue. In doing so we discovered a remarkable commentary by John Rappaport, an alternative news reporter with his own blog. The article in question is also featured on Solari.Com and pulls together numerous disparate, global sociopolitical strands that we've been discussing here at the Bell. Rappaport's thesis in this article seems to agree with ours: It is that the elite destabilization of the Middle East is indeed meant to create, eventually, a regional Islamic theocracy. Below, after our link, is an excerpt from Rappaport's article, "Egypt And The Pyramid of Power." We wrote something similar here:
Now we are faced with the possibility of a more unified Middle East under the banner of Islam. And what would this mean, from the point of view of the globalists? It would mean—if they can pull it off—a relationship with Islamists in which deals are cut from the top down. In other words, while oil continues to flow, the Rockefellers and Bilderbergers of this world would be able to use Islam more powerfully to scare the rest of the planet into a global management system (de facto world government).
Helping to make your enemies larger means gaining the ability to enact more pervasive and widespread solutions to the threat posed by those enemies. A good example is World War 2. In its aftermath, along a 50-year path, globalists were able to construct a semblance of a United Europe, the European Union—which, of course, is a globalist organization run by globalists. And now—a United Islamic Middle East? Suppose this political operation is, under the surface, a globalist move whose key strategy is controlling that Islamic Front from above? Then, Islam, in a sense, becomes a globalist enforcement arm, and under that banner freedom is eroded.
Now you have the kind of perpetual war described by Orwell in 1984. An endless enemy, and continual war-time conditions, in which freedoms are carved up, "because it's necessary if we're going to defeat the enemy." From a globalist perspective, the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were seeds sown to increase Islam opposition to the West—a prelude to what is happening now in the Middle East. The immediate triggers for these current riots? Rising food prices.
Rappaport doesn't mention China, but his perspective about an Orwellian-type strategy struck a chord with us, especially as we have been struggling with the issue of how China is being positioned within its new 21st century context as an economic powerhouse. We've written in the past that it seemed to us the Anglosphere tended to develop one enemy at a time. But it is possible, too, that China is being cultivated as a new threat. Certainly, it is being portrayed in the American media as an economic one. Were this to take place, the Anglosphere could then claim two implacable enemies (of its own making) Islam and China.
This paradigm, extreme as it might appear to be, also explains the rapidly growing authoritarianism in the West. Follow the Orwellian logic and conclude, reluctantly, that both Europe and America must be recreated within a far more authoritarian context if the three segments of the globe are to align. China certainly offers authoritarian capitalism. The Middle East and other parts of the world offer, potentially, variants on authoritarian Islam. In fact, the Islamic world offers up 1.5 billion people in numerous countries and continents that can be bound together in potential militancy against Western infidels.
Islamic movements, even militant ones, have surely been penetrated by Western intel. The leaders are working, or willing to work, with Western powers-that-be, all the while denouncing the West and Western lifestyles for public consumption. They might even be Islamic/regulatory democracy hybrids, as regulatory democracy still in our view offers the sociopolitical philosophy most amenable to elite control.
We've discussed in the past, China's Li family and its links to Western elites, so there may be cooperation within China and Asia as well. Here, then, we have the makings of Orwell's tripartite, warring world. It is one bound together at the top by conspiratorial elites that know full well the divisions they promote are ersatz; but perpetual war for perpetual peace gives each group tools to militarize and polarize society as they choose. An Orwellian solution indeed.
Would it work? Analyzing the potential plans of the Anglosphere (and Islamic and Asian elites) does not mean endorsing the utility of what these power groups have in mind. In the era of the Internet, people are far more aware of their personal manipulations than in the past and therefore less likely to be as easily animated. Additionally, it is hard to conduct low intensity warfare in an era of such powerful weaponry.
The speculation we have offered above, of the attempted creation of a tripartite, warring world – Orwell's vision as proposed in "1984" – certainly seems worth examining. A "long war" of this sort could eventually resolve itself into the longed-for New World Order as these three regions propel their struggle into exhaustion. From chaos … order. We wouldn't have presented such a scenario earlier this year, but the apparent ambition of Western elites to create color revolutions all over the world has considerably expanded our sense of what they believe is possible – and reasons why they might promote such an ambitious undertaking.