January 8, 2018 – Fort Russ News – Paul Antonopoulos – Translated from Nova Resistencia.
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil – Who do the Russians, Iran, the loyalist forces and Hezbollah in Syria really fight against? The answer to this question, respecting the intrinsic sacro / profane dichotomy of geopolitical science, can not be limited to the idea of the conflict over the control of resources and energy corridors or the American will to impose its own domain on the Eurasian Rimland. The “Great Middle East” project, inaugurated at the beginning of the new millennium by the Bush-Cheney administration, imprinted on the constitution of the Kurdish geopolitical pivot as a spearhead useful for destabilizing the region, has a precedent, substantially identical in strategy, in the 1982 Oded Yinon Plan, aimed at the realization of Greater Israel (Eretz Yisrael) within the limits expected for the Hebrew State by the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, in 1904: in other words, “from the Egyptian river to the great river, the river Euphrates, “according to what is written in the book of Genesis (15: 18-21).
Such a plan, known as A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s, as well as claiming Sinai, lost to the ploy of Egyptian President Sadat in the face of Zionist occupation, as an integral part of the Jewish state, lays the foundation for future destabilization of the area and a long-term strategy that would inevitably lead Israel to complete control of the region and its resources. The plan, published as an article in the Zionist magazine Kivunin (Directions), aims, in fact, to disintegrate the Arab world as a fundamental factor for the development of the Hebrew power politics: “in the long run this world will no longer be able to exist “. The article, dealing with Iraq, expresses itself in these terms: “The dissolution of Iraq is even more important to us than that of Syria. Iraq, rich in oil, is a guaranteed candidate for Israel’s goals … In Iraq, a division of provinces along an ethnic-religious line is possible. Thus, three or more states will exist around the three most important cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul. The Shiite zone in the south separated from the Sunni and Kurdish to the north “.
It is not by chance that, in 1982, even Syria suffered, under pressure from the Mossad and the CIA, the Islamist rebellion of Hama. And it is not by chance that, in the course of the same year, Lebanon, already weakened by the civil war, suffered a new Zionist aggression (Operation Peace in Galilee), whose real objective was the annexation of the south of the country of the cedars, with the expulsion the Shiite population, based on historical-religious arguments. So much so that the direction of the military rabbinate circulated among the soldiers, while staying in Lebanon, geographic maps of Eretz Yisrael with many of the names of villages and towns written in Hebrew.
Now, it is a fact that the central nucleus of the neocon faction of the American Republican Party, which had played a leading role in the Bush administration, had a Jewish-Zionist ancestry that was not irrelevant. It is also true that the Zionist lobby exerts a notable influence over Congress. And the current Trump administration, following Barack Obama’s lead from behind years, is an expression of the most extreme current of American Zionism. Needless to say, the recent decision to discontinue the supply plan for the so-called “Syrian rebels” is easily explained by the fact that they had exhausted their function now that the construction of the Kurdish pivot is an accomplished fact.
Understanding the fact that Zionism is only the secular branch (understood in the etymologically correct sense of the laikos term, ie, popular, vulgar) of a larger imperialistic-messianic project, is only the first step in determining the real character of the conflict geopolitical situation in the Levant. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the close connection between Messianism and imperialism and how imperialism, far from being exclusively a “specific state of the world economy”, is the inevitable result of a messianic project about to evolve from the regional phase to the world.
Imperialism as a result of Messianism
Carl Schmitt, in an attempt to understand the real meaning of the term nomos, has identified three different meanings to which the Greek noun can refer: appropriation, division, production. The German jurist, at the same time, emphasized how the history of peoples, with their migrations and conquests, is a history of land appropriation, and how this appropriation should not be understood exclusively as the appropriation of free land, but also as conquest of enemy land subtracted from its previous owner. The narrative of the conquest of Canaan from the Hebrews represents the biblical archetype of this form of appropriation.
Carl Schmitt also noted how the writing of one of the fundamental texts of Marxism-Leninism, Imperialism: The Higher Phase of Capitalism, is inspired not so much by the observation of economic relations as by the formulation of the world policy program by Joseph Chamberlain, which considered imperialism, understood in the sense of appropriation of new lands, as the solution of the social question. Lenin, impressed by such a statement, can not help but notice the predatory and usurping character of Anglo-Saxon imperialism. The very fact that division and production were to be preceded by colonial expansion, appeared to the Russian revolutionary as the expression of an anti-progress order, reactionary and inhuman. Lenin did not, however, deny the threefold character of the Greek term nomos, but he re-adapted it to a philosophy of history in which appropriation is replaced by expropriation, division becomes redistribution, and where the overgrowth of production renders obsolete all forms of new ownership. Carl Schmitt also points out how, on this point, socialism meets with liberalism, insofar as both consider the infinite advance of technique as the only system capable of avoiding a relapse in the primordial right of the prey.
However, the analysis of the Bolshevik leader, concentrating Marxistically on the purely economic and predatory aspect of British imperialism, could not intuit the religious character of this phenomenon which, shortly after, would be fully evidenced in the passage to the great Island: America.
The scholar Anders Stephanson deeply examined the idea of Manifest Destiny, an expression coined by John O’Sullivan in the mid-nineteenth century to define the American expansion mission on the continent designated to them by Providence and successively used by President Wilson to emphasize the American role of guide of the world towards a better future through a constant intervention of regenerating character. Stephanson came to the conclusion that the United States has not been the only country to give itself an exemplary character from its own national identity. “All national states, or at least the empires of the past, have sustained their own singularity or believed they were consecrated by a higher order. However, no one had the pretense that such a consecration should impose a transformation of the world in its image and likeness, leading to the end of history itself. ” Stephanson acknowledges that this prophetic and universal role is a product of the Puritan heritage, the resurgence of the Exodus narrative, and therefore of the Hebrew theme of divine election through the Covenant with God. It is not, therefore, wrong to claim that US imperialism possesses a direct descendant of Hebrew messianism. The elect people have a tremendous responsibility on their shoulders: the choice between good and evil, which will determine whether the covenant with God will last or not. A choice that implies the need to intervene in the world, according to justice, to change and regenerate it. And only through New Israel will universal justice return to the world.
A similar perspective, in the first place, confirms the correctness of the claim of the Polish conservative thinker Emmanuel Malynski, who considered every form of imperialism as “nationalistic megalomania”. Second, it certifies the absolute coincidence between the American imperialist ideal and its Jewish background. “In the classic texts of the Hebrew tradition, universalism and ethnic-religious, and nationalist particularism, are not two opposing tendencies, but two aspects of the same messianic-imperialist ideology. Universalism coincides with the universal empire of Yahweh and with the rule of the chosen people. Universalism is synonymous with universal Jewish imperialism “. Such universalism derives from the covenant that Yahweh, before covenant with the patriarchs, through Noah, established with all humanity. “According to the Hebrew exegetes, the beginning of the Bible would have been written in a universalistic perspective, whereas the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham would have introduced an important particularist element”. But this supposed universalism is not in opposition to particularism, but it is not a logical consequence either.
If it is true that Abraham’s mission, according to the interpretation generally accepted by all scholars of the Bible, is not limited to the creation of Israel (“all nations shall be blessed in thy seed” – Genesis 22: 17-18) it is also understood as the recreation of all mankind. It is true, however, that such nations will be blessed only if they recognize the sovereignty of Yahweh, “as it appears in Psalm 72, where the blessing of the nations implies their total submission to Israel and his Messiah.” The same Hebrew ideas of peace (shalom) and justice (sedeqq), based on the Torah, are associated with mere supremacy over the enemy. “At the heart of the Old Testament hope is not the prospect of a universal, neutral peace in which all men live together as they are. At the center of the messianic hope is, on the contrary, the power of Yahweh obtained either with the spontaneous submission of the peoples or with the striking victory over all enemies …. Universal peace is none other than Jewish peace, which is the recognition of the sovereignty of Yahweh and the submission of all peoples of the earth to the world order established by the Messiah and to the universal dominion of Israel.” A perspective not very different from the globalist will to impose the Pax Americana imprinted on the idea that “the Messiah is America itself and its mentality”. And it is no coincidence that a number of Christian exegetes of the Talmud have identified the Hebrew Messiah, not as a single person, but as a people: “precisely the people of Israel, predestined to reign over the universe.”
Thus, against a backdrop deeply influenced by Hebrew messianism, the American imperialist ideal develops. President Wilson, at the end of World War I, defines the United States as a New Israel: a nation elected and messianically destined to carry law and order in the world. And it is on this messianic backdrop that the deformation of President Monroe’s isolationist doctrine, to his time already centered on the idea of the moral superiority of America (homeland of freedom) in the confrontations of Europe (home of despotism, according to Thomas Jefferson). And it is also at this moment that we understand the transition from regional imperialism of the Monroe Doctrine to world imperialism.
A passage that is also understood in the Midrash (investigation, research) of the sacred texts of the Hebraísmo and, particularly, in the commentary of Genesis of R. Shelomoh ben Isaak, better known as Rashi. He says, “If the people of the world say to Israel, ‘You are spoilers, because they have subdued the lands belonging to the seven nations by force,’ it would be possible to reply: ‘The whole earth belongs to the Most Holy, blessed be He; he created and I give them to whom it seemed fair in his eyes. With an act of his will, he took them and gave it to us. ‘ For the whole universe belongs to Yahweh, and He, with an act of his own free will, gave the Israelites the Promised Land; He can implicitly give the people elected also the whole world.” Thus, since Yahweh is Lord not only of Palestine, but of the whole world, the universal Jewish dominion represents the immediately successive passage in relation to the Hebrew reconquest of the promised Earth.
About Messianism and Zionism
The Zionist movement, officially born in the second half of the nineteenth century, despite its alleged secular and socialist imposture (a trap that managed to deceive even a statesman with anti-Jewish tendencies such as Josef Stalin) represented the inevitable success of Messianism Hebrew. The formulation of the boundaries of the Hebrew State in Theodor Herzl’s 1904 work, along lines laid down in Genesis 15, 18-21, and that proposed by the Zionist delegation at the Peace Conference at Versailles, according to Numbers 34, 1-15, and Ezekiel 47, 13-20, are the most obvious demonstration. The return of the Hebrews, numerically strengthened in Palestine; the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple on Mount Zion, the seat of the divine presence among men, are the signs that in Hebrew eschatology open the door to the advent of the messianic age.
Now reading The Hebrew State of Theodor Herzl, the programmatic manifesto of Zionism, the messianic character of the project, despite the progressive and laicating veil of many of its slogans, appears clearly. “We show the way to the Promised Land”. And again: “… the world will be delivered through our freedom, enriched by our enrichment and magnified by our greatness”. And, with great clarity, the instruments, also approved by the rabbinic doctrine, through which the objective of such a project was objectified are highlighted. Herzl states: “Palestine is our historical homeland, unforgettable … If your Majesty, the Sultan, gave us Palestine, we could, in return, endeavor to completely adjust the finances of Turkey; for Europe, which will guarantee our existence, will represent a vanguard against Asia there; we will assume the role of the outpost of civilization against barbarism”. The fact that Herzl deliberately ignored the presence of the Arab population in Palestine, which at the time was largely majoritarian, is already in itself representative of the exclusivist and ethnic-religious character imprinted on Zionist design. However, it is extremely shocking that the Ottoman Empire is disintegrating through economic blackmail (money and the “aristocracy of money” as instruments of domination): a disintegration that, in a short time, has been produced internally , by the Young Turks’ Revolution (defined by some as the Hebrew Revolution in the Ottoman Empire) and, as far as its territorial dimension is concerned, by the First World War. But the idea of disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, in the perspective of Hebrew messianism, is not of recent origin.
Solomon Molcho, and his master David Reubeni, who played an important role in the construction of the thesis on the Judeo-Christian roots of Europe and thus in the influence of Christians, aiming to subject them to the ideas of Jewish messianism. Before ending the flames of the Inquisition of Charles V, they made a turn for the courts of Europe, seeking to convince the European sovereigns of the need to attack the Ottoman Empire to recreate the Kingdom of Israel. In a particular way, Molcho proposes to Pope Clement VII the idea of creating an army of Marranos (Hebrews falsely converted to Christianity) to carry out such a venture.
The English and Protestant millenarian movements, deeply influenced by Hebrew messianism, in turn embraced the restorationist idea in the conviction that the return of the Hebrews to the Holy Land would bring the new advent of Christ to the forefront.
Also of great importance was the role played by Sabbatai Zevi, who by the middle of the seventeenth century came to be considered by much of the Hebrew population of Europe, North Africa and the Levant as the Messiah, giving life to that known movement as sabatanism, whose aim was the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire – and hence of Islam – from within. Sabbatai Zevi, in fact, ordered his disciples and relatives to falsely convert to Islam to achieve such a purpose, giving life to the phenomenon known in Ottoman territory as donmeh.
It is not by chance that Wahhabism, which is now the most important ally of Zionism in the Levant, is often compared to Sabathaanism. Nathan of Gaza, the mentor and inspiration of Sabbatai Zevi, in his time, wrote false reports sent to various European Jewish communities, in which he described in detail the action of an imaginary army that, starting from Najd, would conquer Mecca and Medina and would destroy the tombs of the Companions of the Prophet and his family: exactly what the Wahhabites did, with their anti-traditional and a-cultural ideological reach, once they came to power on the Arabian Peninsula. The same inspirer of Wahhabism, Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab, in the Islamic tradition is often compared to Shaitan. It is reported in the prophetic Sunna that Shaitan took the form of an elder of the Najd at the time when the Quraish decided the fate reserved to the Prophet Muhammad, suggesting that he should be killed. It is not, however, a matter of whether Abd al-Wahhab was famous among his contemporaries as “the old man of the Najd.”
Thus it is around the holy city of Jerusalem that the Jewish-Zionist Messianic project is concentrated. His occupation of the European Zionists, identified with the people of Gog and Magog in the perspective of Shaykh Imran Hosein, is the premise for the manifestation of the Dajjal – the liar or false messiah – who plays a prominent role in the Islamic eschatological system. And even in the Christian domain, before the definitive surrender to Zionism by the Second Vatican Council, from the origins of the patristic tradition, the Jewish Messiah was assimilated to the Antichrist, who would try to destroy the Christian religion and subvert the social order built by the Church. “According to the Fathers of the Church, the Antichrist would rise from the very bosom of Judaism and its advent coincides with the triumph of Israel and with the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem”.
Youssef Hindi, in a 2015 article titled Russia, Europe and the Orient: The Double Strategy of the Empire to Bend Moscow, tries to prove that Russia and Iran are not fighting against American imperialism, but against the Jewish. Hindi highlights how the Zionist strategy towards Russia (maintaining good diplomatic relations, but a fierce opposition to any Russian ally in the area) matches that of North America. In July 2013, Saudi Arabia, the region’s main Zionist ally, through the voice of the Prince of Terror, Bandar bin Sultan, sought to attract Russia to his side by offering favorable economic arrangements. The strong rejection of the commitment by Russia marked the progressive North-Atlantic siege that culminated in the coup in Ukraine and the grip of the crash in the Levant.
If Western Christianity is currently domesticated and prostrated before the imperialist desires of the Zionist entity, Eastern Christianity, more closely linked to the Pauline tradition, still acts as a “bastion of Tradition,” whose destruction is the condition of the advent of the Messianic kingdom and domination of Israel. Edom is the name by which, in the post-biblical texts, the greatest impotent and idolatrous power of that time is indicated: Rome, considered a pre-Messianic empire. After sunset from the Roman Empire, this name passes to the second Rome (Constantinople), following its fall and the translatio imperii to Moscow (the third Rome). Edom – understood as Christianity – in the perspective of Jewish messianism, is thus assimilated to the forces of evil that will be annihilated by Yahweh.