[Grorointeri]

Western Elites Secretly Still Building Islam?

#############
http://thedailybell.com/1691/Western...ing-Islam.html
##############

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-ifcation 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 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 on 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 Kosova 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:

http://www.thedailybell.com/383/Al-J...S-cities-.html

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 ops) 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 ..