Fundamentalist Islam Next for Libya?
By Staff News & Analysis - February 25, 2011

In his latest remarks, embattled Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi blamed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden for the uprising in his country, hours after pro-government forces attacked a mosque in the city of Zawiya, killing at least 15 people and wounding 150 others. During his comments, which were made to state television over the phone on Thursday, Gadhafi said the protesters are "loyal to bin Laden." He claimed the terrorist group was placing "hallucinogenic pills" to teenagers in their morning coffee and besieged parents to keep better control of their teenage children. "This is al Qaeda and the whole world is fighting," Gadhafi said. "You have no reason not to enjoy a peaceful life, get control of your children, keep them at home. Those young teenagers, they are carrying machine guns and they feel trigger happy." – CTV

Dominant Social Theme: The revolutions are surprising because they are so spontaneous.

Free-Market Analysis: Is the West setting up Islamic enemies in the Middle East? We've written articles about it, and we can see in this one excerpted above; Col. Moammar Gadhafi's rhetoric may mimic the West's strategies. There is no evidence that bin Laden is alive, yet Gadhafi is trotting out this tired old promotion to place his actions in a more logical context. He is fighting to put down the rebellion because if he does not, Libya will be overcome with Islamic fundamentalism. It is exactly the same sort of rhetorical strategy that the Anglo-American power elites have used to impose its increasingly authoritarian structures on Western societies.

By invading Iraq in 2003, it was thought that the US would usher in an era of democracy in the Arab world, but the unrest is just showing that this was an unrealistic expectation. The invasion was not "liberation" for many but toppled Iraq into a bloody civil war that is still being played out. People are angry over a lack of life basics such as food and electricity and even more so with the visible corruption of local officials supported by US dollars. Doesn't Western-style regulatory democracy sound great?

The current revolts are managing to topple tyrants, but the question is whether these changes will be lasting. What if they turn out to be something less revolutionary, more like a rearrangement of the furniture than a complete makeover? In this article, we will return to the theme that in many ways the current crop of color revolutions are manipulated ones, taking advantage of the understandable frustration of the people in the Middle East.

When Gadhafi blames bin Laden for the unrest, he is making a statement that is at least 50 percent correct. Yes he may be correct in some of his surmises, but not for the reasons he is implying. Libya would probably not go down the path of Muslim fundamentalism on its own, however, with a helping hand from Western powers-that-be to support its emergence, there is a good chance they might.

As we've been arguing, and continue to argue today, the Anglosphere may be setting up a kind of Islamic crescent that it can use to create a more formidable enemy. Al Qaeda, with 12 warriors left in Afghanistan simply isn't doing the trick. The Western elites need war, in our opinion, or at least a more formidable enemy. The entire central banking paradigm is collapsing worldwide and – just as in 1940 – a period of chaos is necessary to obscure its disintegration. As an added bonus (from the West's point of view) Russia may be destabilized as well by onrushing Islamic fundamentalism.

And yet … from our point of view there may now be too many who understand either partially or fully the depths of deviousness in the world today for these sorts of manipulations to work. It is an organized evil in our view that seems to go back thousands of years. But in the modern era, its presence has been dissected as never before. The only comparison to what is going on now would be during the era of the Gutenberg press and the elite responded with similar manipulations. We have argued it took the Anglosphere some 300 years to recover from the dissemination of knowledge caused by the press. And in order to control that explosion of knowledge, the Anglosphere was forced to fracture its own power base and encourage controlled chaos, much as is happening now.

This is generally a very important story, maybe the most important story in the world today. The Anglosphere has put in motion, or so it seems, a worldwide revolution. In a shocking article not long ago, the UK Telegraph pointed out that US intel had been training Egyptian youth groups in techniques of revolution for some two years if not longer. Meanwhile, the US State Department, along with certain powerful industrial entrepreneurs launched AYM, some three years ago. Wired magazine described it as "a youth organization [offering education] about using online tools to promote their extraordinary range of social movements and promote non-violent change."

Leaving aside the issue of the corrupt Middle East regimes themselves, the arrogance of presuming that one can foment revolution at will is fairly astounding. The Anglo-American power-elite is not as in-control of events as it was in the 20th century. Then the Anglosphere could start wars and manipulate nations and money with impunity and there was no alternative media to cast doubt on the official story. Today, the blogosphere is alive with speculation about the power-elite, its machinations and goals. The Western elites continue to act as if they are undetectable and are moving around cloaked in a veil of secrecy that has actually been stripped away. It's almost a form of self-delusion and makes us believe (as we concluded long ago) that the elite has certain strategies that it uses over and over again and is not entirely flexible when it comes to surmounting new or unexpected challenges like the Internet.

Just yesterday, a feedbacker sent us a brilliant, short analysis of how the elite manipulates these great social changes. We are well aware that the Venetian banking elite of the day likely aided Martin Luther's Protestantism revolution to split the Catholic church. They may have funded other such efforts as well. The feedbacker pointed out that Cromwell's hyper-Puritan regime in Britain was very similar to the advent of Wahhabism in the Middle East. It is no coincidence that Wahhabism comes out of Saudi Arabia, a country the Anglosphere invented, funded and continues to prop up.

Another feedbacker pointed out that the CFR's Walter Russell Mead may have been responsible for the original insight. He enclosed the following quote about Mead's perspective: "Mead draws sharp analogies between the 16th and 17th century Protestant fundamentalists like the Lutherans, Calvinists and Puritans and the Muslim Wahhabi and Salafist fundamentalists of today."

Certainly, Wahhabism, like Puritanism, is an authoritarian form of Islam. Theocratical Wahhabism, with its emphasis on amputations, killing homosexuals and stoning women for being raped is almost being positioned as a kind of anti-Christianity. In a sense it is like Cromwell's fundamentalist Puritanism. We see the Western elite's fine hand in its creation and dissemination. How do you deal with an outbreak of freedom? You provide an alternative that may be in some cases worse – especially when it is imposed as a theocracy.

For this reason, more and more we come to the conclusion that it is Wahhabism Western elites have planned for the Middle East. In fact, Wahhabism in its theocratic forms can act as a military adversary to the West. Gradually, Western-based Mullahs are infiltrating their countries of origin. In Tunisia, Rachid Ghannouchi has returned from England to reorganize his once-banned Islamist party, al-Nahda; In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is now being fronted apparently by famous Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He is considered one of Islam's top scholars and reaches some 40 million people a week through his Al Jazeera satellite television program. Can all this be coincidence? Here's how we summed it up in a previous Bell article:

Like Gannouchi, Qaradawi has been in exile, only not in Britain. Qaradawi settled in Qatar, a tiny country that is one of the Anglosphere's closest allies in the Middle East. When the Bush Administration launched their initial attack against Iraq, Qatar provided a staging ground. And Qatar is where Al Jazeera was funded and hatched. Most believe Al Jazeera to be a "radical" Islamic news agency but Qatar's Emir was literally plopped on the throne by the Anglosphere and its money still funds the news network, which was populated initially by a group of BBC reporters out of Saudi Arabia.

In both of these cases then, we begin to see a pattern. The West tends to facilitate its enemies. France and Germany coddled Lenin and then sent him back to Russia with funding. Soon the White Russians were defeated and the march of Communism began. The West – especially New York banks and the Bush family (that Bush family) – funded Hitler's rise and invested heavily in Germany's pre-war economic miracle.

Fast forward to the Iranian revolution. As we have pointed out many times, there is no doubt America under Jimmy Carter destabilized the secular regime of the Shah of Iran. And not much later, Ruhollah Khomeini, who had been stored in France (shades of Lenin), was flown back to Iran, complaining to reporters all the while about how much he disliked Iran and Iranians. Khomeini's father is reported to have been British intelligence.

In our article, Western Elites Secretly Still Building Islam, we noted similar patterns that extended throughout the Middle East and Africa. We pointed out that in the Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire), the West was supporting Alassane Ouattara, a Muslim over Laurent Gbagbo, a Christian. In Sudan, the West supported a referendum that has split the North from the South. Northern president Omar al-Bashir now plans a Sharia state. And of course during the War in Kosova, the West backed Albanian Muslims over Serbian Christians.

In another recent article, we suggested that Western elites were setting up George Orwell's 1984, complete with an Islamic enemy and Asian enemy (China). "A 'long war' of this sort [we wrote] 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."

We have doubts that these color revolutions are what they seem to be. As in the past, the West is encouraging the "youth" behind them and providing funding (even signage according to some reports!) to ensure that they go forward. We see many parallels in this environment to the advent of the Gutenberg press and how banking elites of the day fought back by shattering and then attempting to remake civil society.

To us, these color revolutions appear to support dominant social themes that have historically spawned from the centers of the power elite's global architecture, including the United Nations, World Bank, World Trade Organization and World Health Organization. The themes are then rebroadcast by the mainstream media. The United Nations, being a leading example of an authority-based solution to a problem proposed by a dominant social theme, is undoubtedly earmarked to "save the day" and provide an international solution to international conflict, including war. The solution is for national governments to be made subject to their worldwide authority.

What is also clear to us though, is that despite the elite's best efforts, control of society slipped away during Gutenberg era and was not re-established until well after the American civil war. The 20th century in our view was a true Dark Age, but because of the Internet and its dissemination of alternative truths and paradigms, we tend to believe the Anglosphere is going to have a difficult time with its dominant social themes this time around. That goes for the imposition of fundamentalist Islam and the ratcheting up of the war on terror to include whole countries. Renaissance anyone?

Col. Moammar Gadhafi may have been correct to warn about the creation of an Islamic state in Lybia, but he certainly attributed that potential outcome to the wrong individual. It will not be bin Laden but Western powers who are apparently busy building these sociopolitical reconfigurations so as to heighten tensions in the world and create friction and even conflict between a resurgent Middle East and the West.

This is in our view the response to a failed monetary system. The solution planned, just as it was in World War II. In this case, a UN supra-gov and a supra-central bank with a single currency – the bancor? The populace is to be promoted on the idea that the collapse of the financial/monetary system is due to ongoing global conflict. The solution is global government.

These trends are not noticed merely in the West, however, or enunciated within the alternative blogosphere. Increasingly there is a perception within the Middle East itself about these issues that is quite sophisticated. The Islamic-oriented World Future website carries a recent analysis that includes the following: "Nothing in the events taking place in the Middle East and North Africa suggest a 'genuine' revolution led by angry people is underway in the Islamic world." And the article adds:

… To call the events in the Middle East 'revolutions' is a bit too hasty. Revolts do not end with the leaders fleeing or residing in their lavish homes after they fell. Revolutions are moments where the crowd grabs the culprit and cull him or her in public. It happened in Italy when they finished off Benito Musolini and to Nicolae Ceausescu in Hungary where he was killed by the angry crowds. The great possibility is that at the end of these convulsions in the Middle East, the American empire will be stronger and its control of the Middle East and the Arab world more than certain. The 'Islamic' agenda will be far behind and the young leaders of the 'democracy' movements will become the new 'tyrants' at the behest of Washington, suppressing the same freedom the people thought they fought for!

After Thoughts

While World Future does not seem to orient its analysis around faux-fundamentalism as we have, the thrust is somewhat the same. If those in the Middle East can identify the essential "managed" nature of what is going on today, this surely does not bode well for the puppet masters. The Bell's singular contribution to the alternative blogosphere is the perception that the Internet itself is a danger to these manipulations and cuts both ways. Let us see if these color revolutions are truly manageable or if they give rise to all sorts of complications as they have in the past when the Anglosphere tries to play its "great game."

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap