keskiviikko 11. joulukuuta 2019



FAKE WARS AND BIG LIES (9/25)

France Manipulated
by
Thierry Meyssan


We are continuing the publication of Thierry Meyssan’s book, “Before Our Very Eyes, Fake Wars and Big Lies”. In this episode, the author shows that post-colonial France was recruited by the United Kingdom and the United States to join the wars against Libya and Syria, without both powers informing her about their "Arab Spring" project. The French leaders, caught up in the misappropriation of funds, saw nothing coming. When they realized that they were being kept out of the planning process, their reaction was purely communicative: they tried to appear as the admirals of the operation, without worrying about the consequences of their partners’ actions.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 11 DECEMBER 2019 

FRANÇAIS TÜRKÇE ITALIANO ESPAÑOL PORTUGUÊS

This article is an extract from the book Fake wars and big lies.


See Contents.


The United Kingdom manipulated France into its adventures in the broader Middle East without revealing to it the operation it had been preparing with the United States since 2005.

18- Preparation of invasions
Libya and Syria


Even before her confirmation by the Senate, the future Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contacted London and Paris to conduct a dual military operation in the "broader Middle East". After the Iraqi fiasco, Washington considers it impossible to use its own troops for this kind of adventure. From a US perspective, the time has come to reshape the region, i.e. to redesign the states whose borders were set in 1916 by the English, French and Russian empires (the "Triple Entente") and to impose lines in favour of US interests. This agreement is known as the British and French delegates Sykes and Picot (the name of Ambassador Sazonov was forgotten due to the Russian revolution). But how can we convince London and Paris to ruin their heritage, if not by promising to let them recolonize the region? Hence the theory of "leadership from the back". 

This strategy is confirmed by former Mitterrand Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, who testifies on television that he was contacted by British and American people in 2009 to find out whether the French opposition would support a new colonial project.


At the instigation of the United States, France and the United Kingdom signed the Lancaster House Agreements. A secret clause provides for the conquest of Libya and Syria. However, public opinion ignores the agreement between London and Washington on the future "Arab springs".

In November 2010, i.e. before the beginning of the so-called "Arab Spring", David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy signed the Lancaster House Treaties in London [1]. The official aim is to pool defence elements, including nuclear elements, in order to achieve economies of scale. Although this is a stupid idea given the different interests of the two countries, public opinion does not understand what is going on. One of the Treaties unites the "projection forces" (including colonial forces) of the two nations.

Operation Southern Mistral: the strange logo of the Air Operations Command. The retiary does not protect the bird from freedom, but makes it a prisoner in its net.

An annex to these treaties states that the Franco-British Expeditionary Force will carry out the largest joint military exercises in the history of the two countries from March 15 to 25, 2011, under the name "Southern Mistral". The Defence website states that the war game scenario will be a very long-range bombardment to help populations threatened by "two dictators of the Mediterranean".

It was precisely on March 21 that US AfriCom and US CentCom - the regional commands of the United States Forces - set a date for France and the United Kingdom to attack both Libya and Syria [2]. This is good news, as the Franco-British Forces are ready. As things never went as planned, the war against Syria was postponed a little later, and Nicolas Sarkozy, who wanted to strike first, ordered his army to attack Libya alone on March 19, during Operation "Harmattan" (French translation of Southern Mistral).


Gaddafi’s former companion, Nouri Massoud El-Mesmari, defected on October 21, 2010. He placed himself under the protection of the French secret services claiming to know the secrets of the Guide.


France believes it has a key asset: the Libyan head of protocol, Nouri Massoud El-Mesmari, has defected and sought asylum in Paris. Sarkozy is convinced that the man was Colonel Gaddafi’s confidant and can help him identify those who are willing to betray him. Unfortunately, this handsome speaker held the Guide’s agenda, but did not attend the meetings [3].

A few days after the signing of the Lancaster House Treaties, a French trade delegation goes to the Benghazi Fair with officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, managers from France Export Céréales and France Agrimer, managers from Soufflet, Louis Dreyfus, Glencore, Cani Céréales, Cargill and Conagra. On the spot, the DGSE agents accompanying them secretly meet with the military to prepare a coup d’état.

Warned by the United States, Tripoli arrested the traitors on January 22, 2011. The Libyans believe they are protected by their new alliance with Washington, as it prepares to kill them. The French, for their part, must return to the shadow of the US Big Brother.

While the French were preparing for the invasion of Libya, the Americans launched their operation with the British. It’s much larger than they told their agent Sarkozy. It is not just a question of overthrowing Muammar al-Qadhafi and Bashar al-Assad, as they led him to believe, but of all secular governments and replacing them with the Muslim Brotherhood. They therefore began with the friendly states (Tunisia and Egypt), leaving the British and French to deal with the enemies (Libya and Syria).

The first shot goes to Tunisia. In response to the suicide attempt of a street merchant, Mohamed el-Bouzazi, on December 17, 2010, there were successive demonstrations against police abuses and then against the government. France, which believes in their spontaneity, is proposing to equip the Tunisian police with anti-riot equipment.

Nicolas Sarkozy and Michèle Alliot-Marie, oblivious to the Anglo-Saxon project of the "Arab springs", negotiate with President Ben Ali’s family to sell an official plane that they have hijacked, while the "Jasmine Revolution" begins in Tunisia.


Nicolas Sarkozy and his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Michèle Alliot-Marie, have every confidence in Ben Ali with whom they do personal "business". After having an Airbus A330 built and equipped as a super presidential aircraft, they sold the two old aircraft intended for official travel. One of the A319 CJs was discreetly removed from inventory and sold to the Tunisian company Karthago Airlines, owned by Aziz Miled and Belhassen Trabelsi (Mrs Ben Ali’s brother) [4]. No one knows who the lucky beneficiary of this transaction is. After President Ben Ali’s flight, the aircraft would be recovered and sold to a gaming company in Singapore and then to Turkey.

Busily protecting their fence, Nicolas Sarkozy and Michèle Alliot-Marie fell from the sky when President Ben Ali asked to land in Paris and take refuge there. The Elysée has just enough time to cancel the sending of a cargo plane carrying the promised policing equipment that is waiting on the tarmac due to slow clearance formalities and to send the President’s fallen aircraft out of its airspace.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, computer engineer Ahmed Maher and Islamist blogger Israa Abdel Fattah are calling for a demonstration against President Hosni Mubarak on January 25, 2011, "day of anger".

Immediately supported by Qatari television Al-Jazeera and the Muslim Brotherhood, they launched a movement that, with the help of CIA "NGOs", destabilized the regime. Demonstrations follow one another every Friday as they leave the mosques from 28 January, supervised by the Serbs that Gene Sharp, the maker of "colourful revolutions", has trained. Finally, Nicolas Sarkozy learned on February 11 through a phone call from his father-in-law, US Ambassador Frank Wisner Jr. that, on instructions from the White House, he had convinced General Mubarak to withdraw.


Lobbyist Bernard-Henri Lévy (known as "BHL") came to Cairo to participate in the CIA’s meeting to launch Arab springs in Libya and Syria, and posed on Tahrir Square.




The CIA then organized a secret meeting in Cairo to which President Sarkozy sent a delegation including lobbyist Bernard-Henri Lévy, a former lover of Carla Bruni and Ségolène Royal. Muslim Brother Mahmoud Jibril, who is number two in the Libyan government when he enters the room, becomes the leader of the "opposition to the tyrant" when he leaves. Among the Syrians present were Malik Al-Abdeh (a former BBC official who created BaradaTV with CIA and State Department money) and Ammar Qurabi (a member of a host of human rights associations and creator of OrientTV) [5].

The wars against Libya and Syria have just begun.


Appearing on the green square on 25 February 2011, Muammar Gaddafi denounced an attack on his country by al-Qaeda terrorists. Lyrical, he proudly proclaims that he will fight to the end against them with his people, even if it means running "rivers of blood" and sacrificing himself. He announced a distribution of weapons to citizens to defend the country in danger. Atlanticist propaganda will accuse him of wanting to spill the blood of his people.


19- The beginning of the war against Libya
The Western press reports that Libyan police dispersed a demonstration in Benghazi on February 16, 2011, shooting at the crowd. Since then, the country has been rising, it continues, and the authorities have been shooting at everything that moves. Anticipating the possible return of slavery, 200,000 migrant workers are trying to flee the country and television shows them waiting at border crossings. 

Muammar Gaddafi appears three times on the screen. He denounces an operation carried out by Al Qaeda and declares that he is ready to die a martyr. Then, he announced the distribution of weapons to the population to spill "rivers of blood", exterminate these "rats" and protect the country. Taken out of context, the sentences in the Guide are broadcast by Western channels, which interpret them as announcing not the fight against terrorism, but the repression of a hypothetical revolution.


Panicked, black workers in eastern Libya tried to flee before the Jamahiriya was overthrown. They are convinced that if the Westerners restore the Old Regime, they will be reduced to slavery. According to the UN, tens of thousands of them are rushing to the borders.

In Geneva, on 25 February, the UN Human Rights Council listened with horror to the testimonies of the Libyan League for Human Rights. The dictator went mad and "massacred his own people". The Pakistani ambassador denounces the abuse of force. Suddenly, the official Libyan delegation entered the room, validated the testimonies heard and declared its solidarity with its fellow citizens in the face of the dictator. A resolution is adopted and transmitted to the Security Council [6]. The latter immediately adopted Resolution 1970 [7] - under Chapter VII of the Charter, which authorizes the use of force - strangely ready for several days. He referred the matter to the International Criminal Court and placed Libya under embargo. This last measure is immediately taken up and extended by the European Union. Going further than other Westerners, President Sarkozy said: "Gaddafi must go!»


The former Minister of Justice, Mustafa Abdel Jalil (here with BHL), who had tortured Bulgarian nurses, becomes head of the provisional government.

On 27 February, the insurgents in Benghazi founded the Libyan National Transitional Council (LNTC), while leaving Tripoli the Minister of Justice, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, created an interim government. These two bodies, controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, merged, giving the impression of national unity. Immediately, flags of former King Idriss bloomed in Benghazi [8]. From London, his son, H.H. Mohamed Senussi, declares himself ready to rule.

Abdel Jalil not being able to convince all members of the CNLT to appeal to the West, he appointed a crisis committee with full powers and chaired by the former number 2 of the Gaddafi government, Mahmoud Jibril, who had returned from Cairo.

In Paris, we admire the way Washington manages events. Yet, contradicting the information from Benghazi and the United Nations, diplomats and journalists present in Tripoli claim that they see nothing that suggests a revolution. But it doesn’t matter what the truth is, as long as appearances are favourable. Thus, the "philosopher" Bernard-Henri Lévy persuaded the French of the justice of the cause by assuring himself that he had convinced the President of the Republic to commit himself to freedom after having met Libyan "revolutionaries".

The French army picked up Mahmoud Jibril and took him to Strasbourg where he pleaded for a Western "humanitarian" intervention in front of the European Parliament. On March 10, Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron wrote to the President of the European Union asking him to recognise the CNLT in place of the "regime" and to establish a no-fly zone [9]. Perfectly coordinated, the French environmentalist deputy Daniel Cohn-Bendit (the agent of influence of May 68) and the Belgian liberal Guy Verhofstadt have the European Parliament adopt on the same day a resolution denouncing Gaddafi’s "regime" and calling for control of Libyan airspace to protect the civilian population from the dictator’s repression [10]. On the same day, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced that he was working on the technical means necessary to implement this air exclusion.

On 12 March, the Arab League voted in favour of the no-fly zone despite opposition from Algeria and Syria.

The only false notes in this unanimity concert: Bulgaria, which remembers that Abdel Jalil covered the torture of Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor, refuses to recognize the CNTL. For its part, the African Union strongly opposes any foreign military intervention.


Muammar Gaddafi’s Green Paper


The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is organized according to the principles of Muammar Gaddafi’s Green Paper. He is an admirer of the French libertarian socialists of the 19th century, Charles Fourier and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. He therefore imagined a minimal state that was unable to defend its people against the imperialist armies. In addition, it has given the State the task of meeting the aspirations of the Bedouins: free transport, housing and water. Everyone therefore has their own car, with public transport being de facto reserved for immigrants. At their wedding, everyone receives an apartment, but it sometimes takes three years for the house to be built before they can get married. 

Gigantic works have been carried out to draw water from millennia of groundwater, very deep under the desert. The country has become prosperous. Its standard of living is the highest on the African continent. But little has been done in the field of education. Although universities are free, most young people drop out early. Muammar Gaddafi underestimated the weight of tribal traditions. 

Three million Libyans are living peaceful days, while two million African and Asian immigrants serve them.

On March 19, 18 States (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Qatar, Spain, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and United States) and 3 international organizations (Arab League, European Union and United Nations) met in Paris to announce their imminent military intervention [11]. A few hours later, France overtook its partners and attacked first.

However, things are slow to materialize in Syria. The calls to demonstrate on 4, 11, 18 and 25 February and those on 4 and 11 March in Damascus are not working. On the contrary, it is in Yemen and Bahrain that the People take to the streets, without being invited.

In Yemen, the Muslim Brotherhood - including the young Tawakkol Karman, who will receive the Nobel Peace Prize - is launching a "revolution". But, like Libya, this country is organized in a tribal way so that it is not possible to have an exclusively political interpretation of events.


Nicolas Sarkozy instructs Alain Bauer on how to counter the revolution in Bahrain.

At the request of the Bahraini sovereign, the Saudi army came to "restore order" in the tiny kingdom that houses the Fifth United States Fleet. The United Kingdom sent torturer Ian Anderson, who had done a wonderful job in leading the repression in colonial times (i.e. before 1971). While, to reorganize the police, France sends Alain Bauer, security advisor to President Sarkozy and both former head of the US NSA for Europe and former Grand Master of the Grand Orient de France [12].

Disorder is spread by contagion, all that remains is to make believe that it is as initiated by the people and that it aims to establish democracies.

(To be continued...)
Thierry Meyssan

Translation
Pete Kimberley
Roger Lagassé





This book is available in English langage.



[1] « Déclaration franco-britannique sur la coopération de défense et de sécurité », Réseau Voltaire, 2 novembre 2010.

[2] “"Operation Odyssey Dawn" breaking for Washington”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 20 March 2011.

[3] “French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November”, by Franco Bechis, Libero (Italy) , Voltaire Network, 25 March 2011.

[4] « Un avion présidentiel dans la 4e dimension », par Patrimoine du Peuple, Comité Valmy , Réseau Voltaire, 6 mars 2011.

[5] Rapport des services de Renseignement extérieurs libyens.

[6] « Résolution du Conseil des droits de l’homme sur la situation en Libye », Réseau Voltaire, 25 février 2011.

[7] “UN Resolution 1970 imposing sanctions on Libya”, Voltaire Network, 26 February 2011.

[8] “Libya: When historical memory is erased”, by Manlio Dinucci, Voltaire Network, 2 March 2011.

[9] “Letter from David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy to Herman Van Rompuy dealing with Libya”, by David Cameron, Herman Van Rompuy, Nicolas Sarkozy, Voltaire Network, 9 March 2011.

[10] “European Parliament resolution on the Southern Neighbourhood, and Libya in particular”, Voltaire Network, 10 March 2011.

[11] “Paris Summit for the Support of the Libyan People”, Voltaire Network, 19 March 2011.

[12] “France involved in crackdown against Arab revolts”, Voltaire Network, 6 March 2011.






Русофобия Маркса и Энгельса

Мало кто знает, что Маркс и Энгельс были патологическими русофобами (и славянофобами, вообще). Вот некоторые высказывания Маркса о России и русских:

"Московия была воспитана и выросла в ужасной и гнусной школе монгольского рабства. Даже после своего освобождения Московия продолжала играть роль раба, ставшего господином. Впоследствии Пётр Великий сочетал политическое искусство монгольского раба с гордыми стремлениями монгольского властелина, которому Чингиз-хан завещал осуществить план завоевания мира".

Сейчас стало известно, что эту бредовую идею о Петре Первом как "преемнике" монгольских ханов Маркс позаимствовал из одной исторической фальшивки, так называемого тайного "Завещания Петра Великого", сфабрикованной во Франции, где якобы излагались секретные планы русских по завоеванию мирового господства. Ещё при жизни Маркса было достоверно установлено, что это "Завещание" выдумали и состряпали в 1811 году советники Наполеона Бонапарта, искавшие любой повод для нападения на Россию в "защиту европейской цивилизации".

Но Маркса этот нюанс нисколько не смутил - он до конца жизни оставался верен своим русофобским убеждениям.

"Кронштадт и Петербург необходимо уничтожить... Без Одессы, Кронштадта, Риги и Севастополя с эмансипированной Финляндией и враждебной армией у врат столицы... что будет с Россией? Гигант без рук, без глаз, могущий только пытаться поразить своих противников слепым весом".
(А как вам нравится отношение даже к противнику, которого вы хотите чертвертовать и обезглазить, а? На мой взгляд - варварство. ЕП.)


А спустя полвека оставленные им "наработки" о неполноценности русских, об исторической агрессивности России, якобы, веками угрожавшей Европе, были взяты на вооружение властями нацистской Германии.

А Энгельс даже пытался обосновать теорию военного похода на Москву, которая позволила бы европейским союзникам избежать тех ошибок, которые совершил Наполеон во время войны 1812 года.

Оба "основоположника" завязали дружескую переписку с польским террористом Теофилом Лапинским, публично призывавшим либо «истреблять русский народ поголовно, либо загнать его "как дикого зверя" за Урал, в сибирские снега.» (Это во времена Крымской войны (1853 - 1856 годы).

Это классический пример польской имперской русофобии, но как страшно и бесчеловечно это отношение к русским от славян.

Повторю еще раз, «борьба не на жизнь, а на смерть с предательским по отношению к революции славянством, ... истребительная война и безудержный террор». Тогда, о какой революции идет речь и о каких целях «революционеров»?





Троцкий-Бронштейн: «Мы должны превратить Россию в пустыню, населенную белыми неграми, которым мы дадим такую тиранию, какая не снилась никогда самым страшным деспотам Востока. Разница лишь в том, что тирания эта будет не справа, а слева, не белая, а красная. В буквальном смысле этого слова красная, ибо мы прольем такие потоки крови, перед которыми содрогнутся и побледнеют все человеческие потери капиталистических войн. Крупнейшие банкиры из-за океана будут работать в теснейшем контакте с нами. Если мы выиграем революцию, раздавим Россию, то на погребальных обломках её укрепим власть сионизма... Путем террора, кровавых бань мы доведем русскую интеллигенцию до полного отупения, до идиотизма, до животного состояния…».

Илл. Троцкий-Бронштейн

Очень похоже на высказывания Гитлера. Но квинтэссенцией всех русофобских размышлений Маркса стало следующее:

"У Европы только одна альтернатива: либо подчиниться варварскому игу славян, либо окончательно разрушить центр этой враждебной силы - Россию".
Источник: Как относились Маркс , Энгельс, Троцкий к России и Русским .http://voisvet.ru/pravda/306-kak-otn...-rossii-i.html


Если проанализировать эти высказывания, суть их сводится к следующему: презрение к истории России и ее достижениям, дегуманизация русских до образа «дикого зверя», которого нужно либо истребить, либо загнать куда-подальше, но почему? Образ дикого зверя – хищника – вызывает страх и создает ситуацию непредсказуемости момента нападения. Однако, Россия никогда первая ни на кого не нападала, все военные действия, предпринимаемые Россией всегда были ответом на нападения на нее, на объявление войны и провокационные действия другой державы.

Мы же прекрасно помним позицию Великобритании и США накануне Второй мировой войны: они собирались поддерживать обе стороны – Россию и Германию – для их взаимного ослабления, если Германия нападет на Россию – будут поддерживать Россию, но если Россия «нападет или позволит себя спровоцировать», то поддерживать будут Германию. (А сразу же после разгрома гитлеровцев начали планировать войну с Россией и бомбардировки ЕЕ городов. ЕП.)


Поверить в стремления русских к мировому господству можно было бы после разгрома Наполеона, когда это было не только актуально, но и вполне возможно малыми силами. Однако, ничего подобного не произошло. Россия дошла до сердца Европы Парижа и вернулась обратно домой. Не оставив колониального правительства, наместников, оккупационных войск (военных баз). Не объявив ни о каких требованиях или компенсациях/репарациях. Император даже оплатил счета своих офицеров, обедавших и пивших шампанское в лучших парижских ресторанах в долг.


Что же дало основание через 40 лет после этих событий в разгар Крымской войны, спровоцированной и организованной Англией, Францией и прочими шведами именно для ослабления сильной России, говорить об устремлениях России к мировому господству?


Да ничего. Это господин Маркс соврал просто. Очень ненавидел Российскую империю, где евреям не давали продвигаться в центральную ее самую богатую часть, в Петербург и Москву (черта оседлости еще не была отменена). 

Но согласитесь, даже такое мерзкое притеснение коммерческих амбиций украинских, польских и белорусских евреев не дает достаточно оснований для всех последующих заявлений упомянутого господина. Или дает? На основании того, что по собственным заявлениям Маркса «он не был марксистом», а был сионистом и поддерживался Великобританией. Об этом – чуть позже.


«Герцен рассказывает еще об одной скандальной русофобской выходке господина Маркса в Лондоне, где оба постоянно проживали в эмиграции и вращались в одних кругах.

«Вот Александр Герцен, автор оппозиционного журнала «Колоколъ», которого, по замечанию Владимира Ильича Ленина, «разбудили декабристы» и который стал основоположником русского революционного движения. Как-то в Лондоне его пригласили выступить на одном митинге, посвящённом международному рабочему движению.


Но этому резко воспротивился один из организаторов митинга, немецкий революционер Карл Маркс. Почему? Об этом потом написал сам Герцен:
A. Герцен. Портрет работы Н. Ге

«Маркс сказал, что меня лично не знает, что он не имеет никакого частного обвинения, но находит достаточным, что я русский и что, наконец, если оргкомитет не исключит меня, то он, Маркс, будет вынужден выйти сам. Вся эта ненависть со стороны Маркса была чисто платоническая...»


То есть Герцен был ненавистен Марксу только потому, что тот был выходцем из России и в силу своей «дикости и отсталости» не имел даже права думать о самом передовом социалистическом учении. В общем-то, это подтвердил и сам «основоположник», который в своих сочинениях нередко именовал Герцена «презренным московитом», человеком с «гадкой русско-калмыцкой кровью» и т. д.

Что-то это мне напоминает... Русофобская и антиславянская риторика, на самом деле, не изменилась совсем. Она как бы не развивалась. Использовались и используются одни и те же клише и старые наработки.


А когда Герцен в своём революционном журнале опубликовал перевод знаменитого «Манифеста Коммунистической партии» Маркса и Энгельса, то этот шаг вызвал лишь презрительное недоумение у самих «основоположников». Энгельс назвал поступок Герцена «литературным курьёзом».

То есть, европейские революционеры – коммунисты никак не ассоциировали себя с русскими революционерами, а их (русских) стремление к коммунизму считали КУРЬЕЗОМ. Это говорит только об одном, цели европейских «революционеров» были совершенно другими, чем у русских реформаторов и даже радикалов. И коммунизмом они называли что-то совсем отличное от нашего представления о нем. Особенно, если учесть высказывания Энгельса и Троцкого-Бронштейна.

Надо сказать, что подобное поведение отцов марксизма нередко вызывало возмущение у русских революционеров. Знаменитый лидер и теоретик мирового анархистского движения Михаил Бакунин не один раз, по его словам, хотел «набить бородатую морду Маркса», пересекаясь с ним на различных социалистических конгрессах Европы. Но «основоположник» всегда старался спрятаться подальше от известного анархиста-боевика, владевшего всеми тогда известными видами оружия. Своё трусливое поведение Маркс объяснял своим друзьям тем, что «не намерен отвечать на вызов какого-то презренного славянина».

С русскими «недочеловеками» он не намеревался вступать в какую-либо дискуссию...

Многие историки полагают, что истоки расовой ненависти Маркса к России лежат прежде всего в происхождении «основоположника». Он родился в богатой семье еврейского адвоката Генриха Маркса, жившего в Рейнской области Германии. Адвокат воспитывал свою семью в духе всех тогдашних предрассудков по отношению к нашей стране, витавших в Европе.

Так, согласно различным «теориям» ряда германских учёных, русские, да и все славяне вообще, являлись дикими племенами татаро-монгольской крови, которым абсолютно был чужд дух европейского прогресса. Мол, русские дикари только и жаждут того, чтобы уничтожить европейскую цивилизацию и культуру. (Этот миф давно развенчан учеными-антропологами, однако, живет и здравствует, и поддерживается по сей день.)

А от ортодоксальных еврейских раввинов семья Маркса набралась мифов о России как злобной антисемитской державе, где еврейские погромы случаются чуть ли не по сто раз в день. Понятно, что в представлении этих людей наша страна не имела никакого права на существование.»

Игорь Невский, специально для «Посольского приказа»

А вот цитата из другой статьи -

«Маркс как агент мировых финансовых олигархов»:
«Обратимся теперь к другому, менее известному документу, написанному в то же время, что и «Манифест Коммунистической партии». Это тоже Манифест, но принадлежит он перу американского политика Клинтона Рузвельта, выходца из влиятельнейшего клана Рузвельтов, давшего США нескольких президентов и банкиров (клан до сих пор владеет всемирно известным «Бэнк оф Нью-Йорк» и ещё рядом не менее влиятельных финансовых структур).


Так вот, Клинтон Рузвельт в своём произведении предложил создать общество, в котором власть принадлежала бы финансовой элите избранных, то есть представителям самых мощных банковских структур.

В их руках должно быть не только политическое руководство, но и средства производства, основная собственность (мелкая и средняя исключаются из общества вообще). Все остальные люди обязаны беспрекословно трудиться на эту элиту, которая могла бы по своему усмотрению возвышать или казнить любого гражданина. А принадлежность к элите должна быть наследственной, без ширмы всяких там демократических выборов — наподобие средневековых монархий... (Вот к этому те же самые круги стремятся и сейчас в 21-м веке в 2017 году. ЕП.)


Любопытно, что сей Манифест Рузвельту помогал писать журналист Чарльз Дана, главный редактор той самой газеты «Нью-Йорк Трибьюн», которая печатала и финансировала Маркса.

Получается, что между двумя Манифестами существует некая связь.»

Рейдерство мирового масштаба
Вот какую версию в этой связи предложил дотошный американский исследователь вопросов экономики и истории Энтони Саттон. В своих капитальных трудах «Власть доллара», «Кто властвует в Америке» и ряде других Саттон проводит мысль о том, что в середине 19-го столетия крупнейшие американские финансисты и ряд их европейских коллег вознамерились захватить мировую власть.

Манифест Клинтона Рузвельта стал для них руководящим документом по достижению конечной цели.

Шаг за шагом историк описывает, как продвигался сам процесс захвата власти в США узкой группой финансистов. Как в 1913 году эти люди добились создания Федеральной Резервной системы, которая печатает доллары, но не подчиняется официальным американским властным структурам.




Как банки захватывали целые отрасли промышленности, постепенно превращаясь в мощные монополии.

Как эти монополии постепенно вытесняли с рынка мелкий и средний бизнес, обрекая его на вымирание.

Как президенты США превратились в марионеток по обслуживанию интересов крупного капитала...

А Манифест Маркса для элиты с Уолл-стрит показался подходящим для революционного разрушения тех государств, которые захотят противиться планам мировой финансовой элиты.

(Вот почему они смеялись над наивностью русских революционеров, которые верили в искренность манифеста. ЕП.)

По этому поводу Саттон пишет:

"Цель финансирования Маркса была одна — всей мощью марксистской философской канонады обрушиться на средний класс и таким образом добиться господства элиты. (Что происходит и сейчас. ЕП.) Марксизм — это средство для упрочения власти элиты. Он не ставит своей задачей облегчить страдания бедных или способствовать прогрессу человечества. Это всего лишь план элиты, как та утопия, «наивная и незамысловатая».

В качестве примера такого разрушения историк привёл печальную судьбу России в XX веке. Марксисты, при полной поддержке западных банкиров, разрушили Российскую империю. Согласно завещанию Маркса, с особым остервенением они уничтожили средний класс — мелкую городскую буржуазию и кулаков. А всю собственность сделали «общенародной», то есть ничьей. (По этому поводу есть и другие мнения. ЕП.)

Поскольку коммунизм (Маркса ЕП.) изначально был утопией, то мировая финансовая элита спокойно дожидалась полного банкротства российского социалистического эксперимента. И после 1991 года различные транснациональные монополии принялись за приватизацию собственности Российского государства. В этом им активно помогали и помогают до сих пор наши бывшие коммунистические функционеры, сами ставшие частью мировой элиты...

Такова цена марксистского учения о «всеобщем равенстве и братстве».


Игорь Невский, специально для «Посольского приказа»,


http://www.posprikaz.ru/2013/04/pochemu-karl-marks-i-fridrix-engels-nenavideli-rossiyu/


Why is the United States suddenly withdrawing from Syria?
by Valentin Vasilescu


The US Air Force is condemned to defeat if it confronts the Syrian Arab Army, which now has in its possession Russian anti-air materials, the best in the world. The US’s only viable option is to leave, sparing itself any humiliation.
History is repeating itself. Once before, in Iraq, the United States had used Kurdish combattants, promising them a State before letting them be massacred by Saddam Hussein. 


Today the US lets other Kurds to whom it has also promised a State, face up to Turkey alone. 

_ In a few months the war will be over. After eight years of fighting and tens of thousands of Islamist mercenaries being sacrificed, Nato’s dream of destroying Syria’s state structures will have failed.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | BUCHAREST (ROMANIA) | 21 DECEMBER 2018
FRANÇAIS ROMÂNĂ DEUTSCH TÜRKÇE ITALIANO ESPAÑOL PORTUGUÊS ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ NORSK فارسى




A week ago, two S-300 rocket missiles were deployed in Deir Ez-zor, in East Syria. Immediately after, the intensity of the US-led coalition flights decreased by 80% in North East Syria. Since 18 September 2018, the Israeli Air Force has not carried out any more raids in Syria’s airspace.

A delegation from the Israeli army, led by General Major Aharon Haliva (Head of Operations), went to Moscow for talks with Major General Vasily Trushin (Joint Chief of Operations of the Russian Army). Relations between the two armies have deteriorated after the destruction of the Russian airplane IL-20 during the attack on Syrian targets near the Russian air base of Hmeymim by the Israeli F-16.

The Israeli delegation went to Moscow because it had not succeeded in finding the gaps in the no fly zone, imposed by the new system of Syrian Defense delivered by Russia. The Israelis thought they could coax the Russians to obtain the security codes for Syrian missiles. Russia, quite clearly, refused to give these codes to them.

What are the elements of the automatized management of the Syrian air space that prevent the Israelis and Americans from acting? Syria has received 6 to 8 S-300/PMU2 missiles, with an action range of 250 km. The missiles guarantee the security of planes and Syrian military land targets. However, they are not the most important element.

Management is assured by the automatized management system, Polyana D4M1. The role of the automatized management system is a necessary interface for the Syrian air units and anti-Air Defense apparatus to work at the same time. Polyana D4M1 can cover an area of 800 km2, following 500 air targets and ballistic missiles and establishing 250 of them. It is thanks to the Polyana D4M1 that command centres of the army of the Syrian Air Force also receive external information from the Russian airplane A-50U (AWACS) and Russian satellites of surveillance.

The memory of the Polyana D4M1 computer servers stock the radar imprint of all the air targets including the cruise missiles and the allegedly “invisible” F-35 plane.

When an air target is detected by a radar in Syria, the automatized system Polyana D4M1 posts information for all the detection radars and systems for guiding planes and Syrian and Russian anti-air artillery. Once identified, the air targets are automatically assigned to be struck down. This automatized system ensures that the oldest Syrian missiles of the Soviet era (S-200, S-75, S-125, etc.) become almost as precise as the S-300 missile.

The Polyana D4M1 network also includes the following:
• the Krasukha-4 for jamming the radars on the ground
• AWACS aircrafts
• reconnaissance planes with or without pilots.

The network also uses the Zhitel R-330ZH systems for interfering with NAVSTAR (GPS), the apparatus of navigation. This equips the means of attack (planes, helicopters, cruise missiles, guided bombs, etc.).

What is the consequence of Russia implementing the automatized management of the Syrian air space?

The US military air bases in Syria consist essentially of troops for special operations. By this we mean a light infantry, without any armour or support. They could not therefore ward off any land attack carried out by the Syrian army supported by the Air Force. Having understood that the US Air Force will not be able to pass the Syrian anti-air barrage without unacceptable losses, any US intervention becomes inappropriate. This is why the US has just announced that it will start to withdraw 2,000 soldiers from Syria [1]. 

At the same time, Turkey, supported by Russia, is getting ready to launch a new offensive against the YPG in Northern Syria. These new circumstances ensure the Syrian Army will fight on the side of Turkey. The YPG, trained and supported by the United States, is quickly losing all the territories that it had taken from the Islamic State which itself had taken from Syria.






Translation
Anoosha Boralessa


DIVERGENT INTERPRETATIONS IN THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST CAMP – PART 1

The anti-imperialist camp: splintered in thought

by Thierry Meyssan


In 2011 when his country was subject to a jihadist siege, President Bashar el-Assad’s reaction was against the norm: rather than strengthening the powers of his security services, he cut them back. Six years on, his country is in the process of emerging victorious, in the most important war since Vietnam. This same type of aggression is unfolding in Latin America. Yet here, it is sparking off a far more classic response. In this article, Thierry Meyssan distinguishes the analysis and strategy of President Assad on the one hand and Maduro and Morales on the other. His aim is not to place these leaders in competition, but rather to call upon each of them to remove themselves from political catechisms and to pay due attention to the lessons learnt from the most recent wars.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 15 AUGUST 2017
FRANÇAIS ESPAÑOL TÜRKÇE DEUTSCH PORTUGUÊS РУССКИЙ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ عربي ITALIANO ROMÂNĂ

In May 2017, Thierry Meyssan appeared on Russia Today and explained where the South American elites were going wrong in their fight against US imperialism. He insisted that there has been a sea-change in the way the US now wages armed conflicts and we now need to radically rethink how we should defend our homeland.

The operation to destabilize Venezuela continues. The first phase: violent gangs demonstrating against the government killed passers by, as if citizenship created no bonds between them. The second phase: the major food suppliers organized food shortages in the supermarkets. Then some members of the forces attacked several ministers, called for a rebellion and now have retreated into hiding.

Of course the international press never ceases to hold the “regime” responsible for the deaths of demonstrators. Yet it is a fact that a number of videos testify that these demonstrators were deliberately assassinated by demonstrators themselves. No regard is paid to this and on the basis of this false information, the press then proceeds to qualify Nicolas Maduro as a “dictator” just as it did six years ago with respect to Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar el-Assad.

The United States has used the Organization of American States (the OAS) as an arm against President Maduro just like it once used the Arab League against President al-Assad. Caracas, not expecting to be excluded from the Organization, denounced this method and left of its own accord.

Maduro’s government has however two failures on its balance sheet: the vast majority of its voters did not go to the polling stations for the legislative elections of 2015, allowing the opposition to sweep a majority in Parliament. it was caught out by the crisis of food products, even though the same thing had been organized in the past in Chile against Allende and in Venezuela against Chávez. It required several weeks to put in place new circuits to provide food.

In all likelihood, the conflict that begins in Venezuela will not be held back by its borders. It will ooze out, embracing the entire North West of the South American continent and the Caribbean.

An additional step has been taken with military preparations against Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador following Mexico, Colombia and British Guyana. The team responsible for co-ordinating these measures is from the former Office of Global Democracy Strategy. This was a unit established by President Bill Clinton, then continued by Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz. Mike Pompeo, the current director of the CIA, has confirmed that this unit exists. This has led to rumours in the press, followed up by President Trump, of a US military option.

To save his country, President Maduro’s team has refused to follow the example of President al-Assad. Maduro’s team thinks that there is no real comparison between what is happening in Venezuela and Syria. The United States, the principal capitalist power, would set off to Venezuela to steal its oil, according to a plan that has been repeatedly played out in the past on three continents. This point of view was given further weight by a speech that Evo Morales, Bolivia’s President, recently delivered.

Let us recall that in 2003 and 2011, President Saddam Hussein, the Guide Muammar Gaddafi and a number of President Assad’s advisors reasoned similarly. They thought that the US would attack the following states in succession: Afghanistan and Iraq, then Tunisia, Egypt and Libya and Syria. And why? For the sole reason of bringing about the collapse of regimes that were resisting its imperialism and controlling hydrocarbon resources in an expanded Middle East. A number of anti-imperialist authors cling to this analysis today. So for example, they use it to try to explain the war against Syria by reference to the interruption of the Qatari gas pipeline project.

Now, this line of thinking is turning out to be false. The US is not looking to reverse progressive governments (Libya and Syria), nor to steal the region’s oil and gas. Its intent is to decimate States, to send people of these countries back to a pre-historic time where “man did not love his neighbour as God loved him but would pounce like a wolf upon his neighbour” [Translator’s note: the literal translation of the French original is: “man was a wolf for man”].

Has toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and the regime of Gaddafi brought peace back to these states? No! Wars have continued even though “government of occupation” has been set up in Iraq, then a government composed of other governments in the region including those who collaborated with the imperialists opposed to national independence. Wars are still being waged. This surely evidences that Washington and London had no intention of toppling these regimes nor defending democracy. These were transparent covers for their true intentions which were to eliminate the people in these states. It is a basic observation that rocks our understanding of contemporary imperialism.

This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq— in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon’s New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented.

Imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which profits from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other will be a zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is fixated on surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they need without any duty to account to anyone.

According to this map, taken from one of Thomas P. M. Barnett’s power point slides, presented at a conference held at the Pentagon in 2003, every state in the pink zone must be destroyed. This project has nothing to with the struggle between classes at the national level nor with exploiting natural resources. Once they are done with the expanded Middle East, the US strategists are preparing to reduce the North West of Latin America to ruins.

Since the eighteenth century and the British Civil War, Western development has been triggered by its attempt to do all it can to avoid chaos. Thomas Hobbes taught us to support the thinking of the State rather than risk experiencing this torment for another time. The notion of chaos only returned to us with Leo Strauss, after the Second World War. This philosopher, who has personally trained a number of personalities within the Pentagon, intended to build a new form of power by plunging part of the world into hell.

Jihadism inflicted onto an expanded Middle East has shown us what is chaos.

While President Assad reacted as anticipated to the events of Deraa (March – April 2011), by sending his army to quell the jihadists of the Mosque al-Omari, he was the first to understand what was happening. Far from increasing the powers of the forces to maintain order to repress the aggression sourced from abroad, he equipped his people with the means to defend their homeland.

First: he lifted the state of emergency, dissolved the special courts, freed the Internet communications and forbid the armed forces to use their arms if to do so would endanger the lives of innocent civilians.

When Assad took these decisions he was clearly not going with the flow. And these decisions were ladened with consequences. For example, at the time of the attack of a military convoy at Banias, soldiers held off using their weapons in self-defence; they preferred to be mutilated by the bombs of their attackers and occasionally die, rather than to fire, risking injuring inhabitants that were looking at them being massacred without intervening.

Like many at this time, I thought that the President was too weak and his troops too loyal; that Syria was going to go down. However six years on, Bashar el-Assad and the Syrian armed forces met the challenge. While at the beginning the soldiers have struggled alone against foreign aggression, gradually, every citizen came on board, to defend the country.

Those who were not able to or who did not want to resist, went into exile. It is clearly the case that the Syrian people have greatly suffered. That said, Syria is the only State in the entire world, since the Vietnam War, to have resisted until imperialism tires itself out and surrenders.

Second: faced with this invasion of a multitude of jihadists, from Muslim populations all over the world – Morocco to China, President Assad took the decision to abandon part of his territory to save his people.

The Syrian Arab Army confined itself to the “useful Syria”, that is, to the cities. It abandoned the countryside and the deserts to the attackers. Damascus kept supervising, uninterruptedly, the provision of food to every region under its control. Contrary to an idea accepted by the West as common knowledge, the only areas where there is famine are those areas under Jihadi control and in the cities that it has besieged; the “ foreign rebels” (forgive this oxymoron), supplied by “humanitarian” associations, use the distribution of food packages as a means of making starving populations submit to them.

The Syria people have seen for themselves how the Republic alone assumed the role of feeding them and protecting them. The Muslim Brotherhood and their jihadists played no part.

Third: In a speech delivered on 12 December 2012, President Assad traced, how he intended to remake political unity in his country. Of special mention, he pointed out the need to draft a new constitution and to submit it to adoption by a qualified majority of his people then to proceed to democratically elect all institutional officials, including of course, the President.

At that time, the Westerners mocked the claim of President Assad to call elections when the war was at its bloodiest. Today, all diplomats involved in resolving this conflict including the UN, support Assad’s plan.

While Jihadi commandos were freely roaming the entire country, notably Damascus, and were murdering politicians even invading their homes where their families were, to do so, President Assad has encouraged dialogue with nationals who oppose him. He guaranteed the security of the liberal Hassan el-Nouri and the Marxist Maher el-Hajjar so that they too, might risk presenting themselves at the presidential elections in June 2014. Despite an appeal to boycott issued by the Muslim Brotherhood and Western governments, despite jihadi terror, despite the fact that millions of citizens were exiled abroad, voter turn out (of those present) was 73.42 %.

In the same way, from the beginning of the war, he created a ministry for National Reconciliation, something never seen before in a country where war is going on. Assad handed the ministry over to Ali Haidar, the President of PSNS, an allied party. He negotiated and concluded thousands of agreements taking into account the amnesty of citizens who had taken arms against the Republic and their integration in the Syrian Arab Army.

During this war, President Assad has never used force against his own people. This is so, despite the allegations of those who freely accuse him of widespread torture. So, let me be clear: he has never set up mass executions nor mandatory conscriptions. It is always possible for a young man to avoid his military obligations. Administrative procedures allow any male citizen to evade national service if he does not desire to defend his country with weapons in hand. Only the exiled who have not had the occasion to pursue these procedures may find themselves in violation of these laws.

For six years, President Assad has not stopped on the one hand, making an appeal to his people, asking them to thrust upon him obligations, and on the other hand, trying to feed them and to protect them, as far as he is able. He has always assumed the risk of giving before receiving. That is why today, he has won the confidence of his people, and can count on their active support.

South American elites are wrong to pursue the fight of the previous decades for a fairer distribution of their wealth. The battle which they must focus is no longer one where the majority of the people and small class of privileged individuals are on opposite sides.

The choice put to the peoples of the expanded Middle East and to the people of South America is this: aut defendendum vobis patriam est aut morendum vobis est (you must either defend your homeland or die). It is this question that they will have to respond to.

The facts prove it: the number one priority of imperialism today is no longer plundering natural resources. Imperialism, unscrupulous, dominates the world. Yet now its vision has expanded to wiping out people and to destroying the societies in the regions where it is already exploiting resources.

In this iron era, the Assad strategy alone allows us to stand tall and free

(To be continued…)
Thierry Meyssan

Translation
Anoosha Boralessa

DIVERGENT INTERPRETATIONS IN THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST CAMP – PART 2

The US military project for the world
by Thierry Meyssan


While all experts agree that the events in Venezuela are following the same model as those in Syria, some writers have contested the article by Thierry Meyssan which highlights their differences from the interpretation in the anti-imperialist camp. Here, our author responds. This is not a quarrel between specialists, but an important debate about the historic change we are experiencing since 11 September 2001, and which is influencing all our lives.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 22 AUGUST 2017
DEUTSCH ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ FRANÇAIS TÜRKÇE ESPAÑOL PORTUGUÊS ROMÂNĂ РУССКИЙ عربي ITALIANO





This article is the continuation of
« The anti-imperialist camp: splintered in thought », by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 15 August 2017.

In the first part of this article, I pointed out the fact that currently, President Bachar el-Assad is the only personality who has adapted to the new « grand US strategy » - all the others continue to think as if the present conflicts were simply a continuation of those we have been experiencing since the end of the Second World War. They persist in interpreting these events as tentatives by the United States to hog natural ressources for themselves by organising the overthrow of the pertinent governments.

As I intend to demonstrate, I believe that they are wrong, and that their error could hasten humanity down the road to hell.
US strategic thought

For the last 70 years, the obsession of US strategists has not been to defend their people, but to maintain their military superiority over the rest of the world. During the decade between the dissolution of the USSR and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they searched for ways to intimidate those who resisted them.

Harlan K. Ullman developed the idea of terrorising populations by dealing them a horrifying blow to the head (Shock and awe) [1]. This was the idea behind the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese and the bombing of Baghdad with a storm of cruise missiles.

The Straussians (meaning the disciples of philosopher Leo Strauss) dreamed of waging and winning several wars at once (Full-spectrum dominance). This led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, placed under a common command [2].

Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski suggested reorganising the armies in order to facilitate the treament and sharing of a wealth of data simultaneously. In this way, robots would one day be able to indicate the best tactics instantaneously [3]. As we shall see, the major reforms he initiated were soon to produce poisonous fruit.
US neo-imperialist thought

These ideas and fantasies first of all led President Bush and the Navy to organise the world’s most wide-ranging network for international kidnapping and torture, which created 80,000 victims. Then President Obama set up an assassination programme mainly using drones, but also commandos, which operates in 80 countries, and enjoys an annual budget of 14 billion dollars [4].

As from 9/11, Admiral Cebrowski’s assistant, Thomas P. M. Barnett, has given numerous conferences at the Pentagon and in military academies in order to announce the shape of the new map of the world according to the Pentagon [5]. This project was made possible by the structural reforms of US armies – these reforms are the source of this new vision of the world. At first, it seemed so crazy that foreign observers too quickly considered it as one more piece of rhetoric aimed at striking fear into the people they wanted to dominate.

Barnett declared that in order to maintain their hegemony over the world, the United States would have to « settle for less », in other words, to divide the world in two. On one side, the stable states (the members of the G8 and their allies), on the other, the rest of the world, considered only as a simple reservoir of natural resources. Contrary to his predecessors, Barnett no longer considered access to these resources as vital for Washington, but claimed that they would only be accessible to the stable states by transit via the services of the US army. From now on, it was necessary to systematically destroy all state structures in the reservoir of resources, so that one day, no-one would be able to oppose the will of Washington, nor deal directly with the stable states.

During his State of the Union speech in January 1980, President Carter announced his doctrine - Washington considered that the supply of its economy with oil from the Gulf was a question of national security [6]. Following that, the Pentagon created CentCom in order to control the region. But today, Washington takes less oil from Iraq and Libya than it exploited before those wars – and it doesn’t care !

Destroying the state structures is to operate a plunge into chaos, a concept borrowed from Leo Strauss, but to which Barnett gives new meaning. For the Jewish philosopher, the Jewish people can no longer trust democracies after the failure of the Weimar Republic and the Shoah. The only way to protect itself from a new form of Nazism, is to establish its own world dictatorship – in the name of Good, of course. It would therefore be necessary to destroy certain resistant states, drag them into chaos and rebuild them according to different laws [7]. This is what Condoleezza Rice said during the first days of the 2006 war against Lebanon, when Israël still seemed victorious - « I do not see the point of diplomacy if it’s purpose is to return to the status quo ante between Israël and Lebanon. I think that would be a mistake. What we are seeing here, in a way, is the beginning, the contractions of the birth of a new Middle East, and whatever we do, we have to be sure that we are pushing towards the new Middle East and that we are not returning to the old ». On the contrary, for Barnett, not only the few resistant people should be forced into chaos, but all those who have not attained a certain standard of life - and once they are reduced to chaos, they must be kept there.

In fact, the influence of the Straussians has diminished at the Pentagon since the death of Andrew Marshall, who created the idea of the « pivot to Asia » [8].

One of the great differences between the thinking of Barnett and that of his predecessors is that war should not be waged against specific states for political reason, but against regions of the world because they are not integrated into the global economic system. Of course, we will start with one country or another, but we will favour contagion until everything is destroyed, just as we are seeing in the Greater Middle East. Today, tank warfare is raging in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt (Sinaï), Palestine, Lebanon (Ain al-Hilweh and Ras Baalbeck), Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (Qatif), Bahreïn, Yemen, Turkey (Diyarbakır), and Afghanistan.

This is why Barnett’s neo-imperialist strategy will necessarily be based on elements of the rhetoric of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, the « war of civilisations » [9]. Since it is impossible to justify our indifference to the fate of the people from the reservoir of natural resources, we can always persuade ourselves that our civilisations are incompatible.According to this map, taken from one of Thomas P. M. Barnett’s power point slides, presented at a conference held at the Pentagon in 2003, every state in the pink zone must be destroyed. This project has nothing to with the struggle between classes at the national level nor with exploiting natural resources. Once they are done with the expanded Middle East, the US strategists are preparing to reduce the North West of Latin America to ruins.
The implementation of US neo-imperialism

This is precisely the policy which has been in operation since 9/11. None of the wars which were started have yet come to an end. For 16 years, on a daily basis, the living conditions of the Afghan people have become increasingly more terrible and more dangerous. The reconstruction of their state, which was touted to be planned on the model of Germany and Japan after the Second World War, has not yet begun. The presence of NATO troops has not improved the life of the Afghan people, but on the countrary, has made it worse. We are obliged to note the fact that it is today the cause of the problem. Despite the feel-good speeches on international aid, these troops are there only to deepen and maintain the chaos.

Never once, when NATO troops intervened, have the official reasons for the war been shown to be true - neither against Afghanistan (the responsibility of the Taliban in the attacks of 9/11), nor Iraq (President Hussein’s support for the 9/11 terrorists and the preparation of weapons of mass destruction to attack the USA), nor Libya (the bombing of its own people by the army), nor in Syria (the dictatorship of President Assad and the Alaouite cult). And never once has the overthrow of a government ever put an end to these wars. They all continue without interruption, no matter who is in power.

The « Arab Springs », which were born of an idea from MI6 and directly inspired by the « Arab Revolt of 1916 » and the exploits of Lawrence of Arabia, were included in the same US strategy. Tunisia has become ungovernable. Luckily, Egypt was taken back by its army and is today making efforts to heal. Libya has become a battlefield, not since the Security Council resolution aimed at protecting the population, but since the assassination of Mouamar Kadhafi and the victory of NATO. Syria is an exception, because the state never fell into the hanads of the Muslim Brotherhood, which prevented them from dragging the country into chaos. But numerous jihadist groups, born of the Brotherhood, have controlled – and still control – parts of the territory, where they have indeed sown chaos. Neither the Daesh Caliphate, nor Idleb under Al-Qaïda, are states where Islam may flourish, but zones of terror without schools or hospitals.

It is probable that, thanks to its people, its army and its Russian, Lebanese and Iranian allies, Syria will manage to escape the destiny planned for it by Washington, but the Greater Near East will continue to burn until the people there understand their enemies’ plans for them. We now see that the same process of destruction has begun in the North-West of Latin America. The Western medias speak with disdain about the troubles in Venezuela, but the war that is beginning there will not be limited to that country – it will spread throughout the whole region, although the economic and political conditions of the states which compose it are very different.
The limits of US neo-imperialism

The US strategists like to compare their power to that of the Roman Empire. But that empire brought security and opulence to the peoples they conquered and integrated. It built monuments and rationalised their societies. On the contrary, US neo-imperialism does not intend to offer anything to the people of the stable states, nor to the people of the reservoirs of natural resources. It plans to racket the former and to destroy the social connections which bind the latter together. Above all, it does not want to exterminate the people of the reservoirs, but needs for them to suffer so that the chaos in which they live will prevent the stable states from going to them for natural ressources without the protection of the US armies.

Until now, the imperialist project ran on the principle that « you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs ». It admitted that it had committed collateral massacres in order to extend its domination. From now on, it is planning generalised massacres in order to impose its authority - definitively.

US neo-imperialism supposes that the other states of the G8 and their allies will agree to allow their overseas interests to be « protected » by US armies. That should pose no problem with the European Union, which has already been emasculated for a long time, but will have to be negotiated with the United Kingdom, and will be impossible with Russia and China.

Recalling its « special relationship » with Washington, London has already asked to be associated with the US project for governing the world. That was the point of Theresa May’s visit to the United States in January 2017, but she has so far received no answer [10].

Apart from that, it is inconceivable that the US armies will ensure the security of the « Silk Roads » as they do today with their British opposite numbers for the sea and air routes. Similarly, it is unthinkable for them to force Russia to genuflect, which has just been excluded from the G8 because of its engagement in Syria and Crimea.
Thierry Meyssan

Translation
Pete Kimberley





[1] Shock and awe: achieving rapid dominance, Harlan K. Ullman & al., ACT Center for Advanced Concepts and Technology, 1996.

[2] Full Spectrum Dominance. U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond, Rahul Mahajan, Seven Stories Press, 2003.

[3] Network Centric Warfare : Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority, David S. Alberts, John J. Garstka & Frederick P. Stein, CCRP, 1999.

[4] Predator empire : drone warfare and full spectrum dominance, Ian G. R. Shaw, University of Minnesota Press, 2016.

[5] The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas P. M. Barnett, Putnam Publishing Group, 2004.

[6] “State of the Union Address 1980”, by Jimmy Carter, Voltaire Network, 23 January 1980.

[7] Certain specialists of the political thinking of Leo Strauss interpret this in a completely different way. As far as I am concerned, I am not interested in what the philosopher thought, but what is being said by those who, rightly or wrongly, speak to the Pentagon in his name. Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Shadia B. Drury, Palgrave Macmillan, 1988. Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, Anne Norton, Yale University Press, 2005. Leo Strauss and the conservative movement in America : a critical appraisal, Paul Edward Gottfried, Cambridge University Press, 2011. Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians Against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers, Peter Minowitz, Lexington Books, 2016.

[8] The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy, Chapter 9, Andrew F. Krepinevich & Barry D. Watts, Basic Books, 2015.

[9] « The Clash of Civilizations ? » & « The West Unique, Not Universal », Foreign Affairs, 1993 & 1996 ; The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington, Simon & Schuster, 1996.

[10] “Theresa May addresses US Republican leaders”, by Theresa May, Voltaire Network, 27 January 2017.