By: Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
   [ Enlarge ]
What happens these days in today’s world demonstrates very well that Muslims and Christians have been caught victims of an unnecessary and malicious plan.

At the other end, Christians in Europe and America have been misled — through an incessant brainwash orchestrated by their mass media, politicians and intellectuals — and believe that the average Muslim has been radicalized, and is now ready for a Jihad against Christianity and the West.

This is all wrong. In fact, it is a false debate where both clashing parts have a distorted perception of the “other”, and of themselves. What is at stake involves both religions, all the religions of the world, and the world peace.

What Muslims failed to understand: the West is not Christian.

Muslims seem to forget that the Western countries are not Christian countries; they are merely countries with Christian populations, but the principles and the ideas of Christianity have been systematically disrespected and marginalized there. These countries were Christian indeed in the past, but confusing 15th century Europe with today’s Anti-Christian Europe is sheer proof of ignorance.

The Muslims confuse Medieval, Christian Europe’s Anti-Islamic stance with today’s Europe’s Anti-Islamic delirium. Terrible mistake with calamitous consequences!

Never ever has a Modern Muslim undertaken a critical examination of Europe’ identity; even worse, not a single Muslim today imagines as possible for him to undertake a research based let’s say on Ibn Khaldoun’s systematic investigative approach. Muslim historians have been accustomed with Western analytical methods in their explorations and investigations, thus enslaving themselves to a system that is not theirs, and to conclusions that are genuinely wrong for a Muslim to draw.

Simple observation and criticism would however be enough for a Muslim to understand that all the Christian values, principles and concepts on which the Christian Western societies were based have totally disappeared. These values, principles and concepts may perhaps be shared by many average people in the West, but they ceased to be the axis around which evolve the Western societies, their administrations and policy-making.

In fact, the values, principles and concepts that form the essence of today’s Western ruling class mindset, policy making and Weltanschauung are at the very antipodes of Christianity. Materialism, consumerism, immoral behaviour, corruption, relativism, nihilism, conformism, conventionalism, formalism, evolutionism and individualism prevail along with a foolish inclination for technological innovation, luxurious leisure, debauchery, incommensurable selfishness and overwhelming hypocrisy.

The driving force that eliminated Christianity brought forth the aforementioned, purely Anti-Christian situation. All this is due to the subversive tactics of Free Masonry, an ages-old society that in the process of its opposition to Vatican and to the official Christianity was transformed from inside and turned to an apostate guild. The subversive tactics undertaken by the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge in its search for prevalence condemned it to apostasy. Without deeply understanding these developments, no one can understand the evolution of the Western societies, and the phenomena of colonization (as practiced mainly by France and England) and globalization (as practiced mainly by America).

This subversion makes it possible that even in an institution that has been traditionally opposed to Freemasonry, like Vatican, one can possibly find members of the organization — and at times its head — who are Freemasons and act subversively in order to control and guide at will the organization in question.

This is precisely what happens with Vatican today; the present pope has been repeatedly accused by important Christian organizations as being a Freemason, which is absolutely incompatible with the quality of a Christian, and of a Muslim as well (http://www.virgo-maria.org/#). This imposes differentiation policies, and if they are not introduced, Muslims will simply fail in their approach to Europe, America and the Western world.

What Christians failed to understand: the East is not Islamic.

Similarly, Christians seem to forget that the Eastern countries are not Islamic / Muslim countries; they are countries with Muslim populations but the principles and the ideas of Islam have been systematically disrespected and marginalized at the level of the ruling elites, their mindset, lifestyle, behavioural system, administrative choices and policies, and more particularly their foreign policy making. These countries were Muslim indeed, but confusing 16th century Ottoman Empire with today’s pseudo-Muslim states is sheer proof of ignorance.

The Christians confuse Islamic Ages’ Islamic expansion at the detriment of Christianity with today’s Islamic World’s Anti-Western rhetoric. Terrible mistake with calamitous consequences!

Even worse, few Christians realize in the West that the same forces that demolished systematically the Christian values for the past three centuries, principles and concepts are those who shaped and imposed an interpretative method of the Oriental civilizations (Islamic included), which was adjusted to their sociopolitical, economic and global interests, and therefore is absolutely untrue.

Christians in the West failed to understand that one of the nefarious counterparts of Darwinism and evolutionism was the Orientalist doctrine of Islamology, which was geared to both, prevent Westerners from knowing the true Islam and let Muslim scholars persist on their obsolete analyses and approaches that further drag them to irrevocable ignorance and permanent impotence.

Christians in the West failed to understand that the inventors of the fallacious term “Arab — Muslim civilization” (civilisation arabo-musulmane) are identical with the promoters of the gay marriages in the West; even worse, real Catholic and Orthodox Christians failed to overtly accuse of apostasy the pseudo-Christian Evangelical puppets of the Freemasons who are those who promote both, the Zionisation of Christianity and the Anti-Islamic hysteria that deepens the unnecessary chasm between Christians and Muslims.

Even worse, never ever has a Modern Christian undertaken a critical examination of the Islamic World’s identity, other than the Islamological Orientalist fallacy of the Freemasons; even worse, not a single Christian today imagines as possible for him to undertake a research based on let’s say Theophanes’, George Syncellus’, Michel Psellos’ or John Damascenus’ theoretical approaches. Christian Western historians have been accustomed to use Freemasonic Orientalist analytical methods in their explorations and investigations, thus enslaving themselves to a system that is not theirs, and to conclusions that are genuinely wrong for a Christian to draw.

Simple observation and criticism would however be enough for a Christian to understand that all the Islamic values, principles and concepts on which the Islamic societies were traditionally based have by now disappeared. These values, principles and concepts may perhaps be shared by average people in many Muslim countries, but they ceased to be the axis around which the Muslim societies, their administrations and policy-making evolve.

In fact, the values, principles and concepts that form the essence of the Modern Muslim ruling classes mindset, policy making and Weltanschauung are at the very antipodes of genuine, traditional Islam. Filthy liars and bogus sheikhs ready to justify anything are therefore hired in the Islamic World’s leading mosques and universities in order to serve their criminal and pseudo-Islamic presidents, tyrants, emirs and bogus-kings, and they lecture the besotted masses that one Muslim can play football, spend his holidays in 5 stars hotels, organize Marketing campaigns for Coca Cola and Mc Donald’s, and go shopping in the malls.

Islam is thus reduced to a meaningless pseudo-prayer and the besotted pseudo-Muslim masses are told that this is enough to ensure good judgment in the Hereafter. At the same time, due to the advanced Westernization of the pseudo-Muslim societies, materialism, consumerism, immoral behaviour, corruption, relativism, nihilism, conformism, conventionalism, formalism, evolutionism and individualism prevail among pseudo-Muslims along with a foolish inclination for technological innovation, luxurious leisure, debauchery, incommensurable selfishness and overwhelming hypocrisy.

In fact, Islam had fallen into desuetude and coma before Napoleon arrived in Egypt, and even before the English set foot in India. The decadence was due to the rise in force of several negative and nefarious elements and doctrines that at first had been rejected and castigated; however, quite unfortunately, these doctrines managed to survive, expand and even give birth to lower and more degraded doctrinal systems. From Ahmed Ibn Hanbal to Ibn Taimiya and thence to Abdel Wahhab, a grave deterioration of thought, intellect, mental and intellectual processes, and a dramatic degradation and elimination of wisdom, knowledge, art, research and behaviour turned the Islamic civilization into a filthy realm of fanaticism, ignorance, hatred, negativism, and barbarism. This became the realm where tolerance is customarily shown for every attempt of lowering, vulgarizing and bestializing the human being. When Napoleon arrived in Egypt, the Islamic civilization — as assimilated, assessed, expanded and elevated by Masters of the World Thought like Tabari, Khwarismi, Ferdowsi, Ibn Sina, Qurtubi, Mohyieldin Ibn Arabi, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Rushd and many others — simply did not exist anymore.

The early Orientalists, who were all European Freemasons and, under the pretext of search and exploration, did their best to offer false interpretations of the historical phenomena (not only those pertaining to the Islamic Ages), noticed the aforementioned disastrous fall of the Islamic world, and to capitalize on their early colonial success, they triggered among the Muslim societies a series of socioeconomic, political and intellectual, pre-calculated reactions that pushed the colonized Muslim societies further deeper in the bottom. Through this, the Freemasonic Orientalist academia of England and France managed to control and exploit the Muslim societies in a way that made them stronger back home.

Robbing Muslims’ Wealth to Destroy Christianity: Typically Freemasonic

This is the truth that obliges today Christians and Muslims to merge against their common enemy: the wealth extracted from occupied Muslim lands was indeed used by the Freemasonic socioeconomic and political establishment of the West in order to finance the destruction of Christianity in the West.

The driving force that perpetuated Islam’s putrefaction is identical with those who destroyed the Christian identity of the West, and plunged the Western societies into endless crimes, such as abortion, homosexual marriages, and generalized corruption. The same subversive tactics applied by the criminal Freemasonic establishment in the Islamic World damaged the Christians in the West, although the colonial powers’ victories in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and South Asia were effectively depicted as a success for the entire Christianity.

But what sort of Pyrrhic victory is it for the true Christians of the West the fact of an African becoming Christian, if this person’s children, living in America, carry out a totally Anti-Christian life full of materialism, sexualism, amoral behaviour, consumerism, and oblivion of all faiths?

As a matter of fact, the Ottoman Oil stolen by France, England and the US through the illegal occupation of the Ottoman territories (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Emirates and Oman) was not “good” for the Christians in the West. It merely helped elect Freemasonic popes in the 50s, the 60s, the 70s, and the 2000s.

That is why Christian organizations should form a great platform with Muslims who are able to carry out self-criticism and understand that today’s Muslim fanatics trying to radicalize the Muslim societies and escalate the Christian — Muslim clash are merely playing into the Freemasonic game of Islam’s ultimate disaster and annihilation.

Note — Picture: “Cardinal” O’Connor (an intimate friend of anti-pope John Paul 2) Pictured Smiling with Two Full Aproned Freemasons. From: http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/nov05tcw.htm

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

By George Friedman
Founder: stratfor.com

U.S. President Barack Obama released a video offering Iran congratulations on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian New Year, in March. Israeli President Shimon Peres also offered his best wishes, referring to “the noble Iranian people.” The joint initiative was received coldly in Tehran, however. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the video did not show that the United States had shifted its hostile attitude toward Iran.

The video is obviously part of Obama’s broader strategy of demonstrating that his administration has shifted U.S. policy, at least to the extent that it is prepared to open discussions with other regimes (with Iran being the hardest and most controversial case). The U.S. strategy is fairly straightforward: Obama is trying to create a new global perception of the United States. Global opinion was that former U.S. President George W. Bush was unwilling to engage with, and listen to, allies or enemies. Obama’s view is that that perception in itself harmed U.S. foreign policy by increasing suspicion of the United States. For Obama, offering New Year’s greetings to Iran is therefore part of a strategy to change the tone of all aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

Getting Peres to offer parallel greetings was undoubtedly intended to demonstrate to the Iranians that the Israelis would not block U.S. initiatives toward Iran. The Israelis probably were willing to go along with the greetings because they don’t expect them to go very far. They also want to show that they were not responsible for their failure, something critical in their relations with the Obama administration.

The Iranian response is also understandable. The United States has made a series of specific demands on Iran, and has worked to impose economic sanctions on Iran when Tehran has not complied. But Iran also has some fairly specific demands of the United States. It might be useful, therefore, to look at the Iranian view of the United States and the world through its eyes.

From the Iranian point of view, the United States has made two fundamental demands of Iran. The first is that Iran halt its military nuclear program. The second, a much broader demand, is that Iran stop engaging in what the United States calls terrorism. This ranges from support for Hezbollah to support for Shiite factions in Iraq. In return, the United States is prepared to call for a suspension of sanctions against Iran.

For Tehran, however, the suspension of sanctions is much too small a price to pay for major strategic concessions. First, the sanctions don’t work very well. Sanctions only work when most powers are prepared to comply with them. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese are prepared to systematically comply with sanctions, so there is little that Iran can afford that it can’t get. Iran’s problem is that it cannot afford much. Its economy is in shambles due more to internal problems than to sanctions. Therefore, in the Iranian point of view, the United States is asking for strategic concessions, yet offering very little in return.

The Nuclear Question

Meanwhile, merely working on a nuclear device – regardless of how close or far Iran really is from having one – provides Iran with a dramatically important strategic lever. The Iranians learned from the North Korean experience that the United States has a nuclear fetish. Having a nuclear program alone was more important to Pyongyang than actually having nuclear weapons. U.S. fears that North Korea might someday have a nuclear device resulted in significant concessions from the United States, Japan and South Korea.

The danger of having such a program is that the United States – or some other country – might attack and destroy the associated facilities. Therefore, the North Koreans created a high level of uncertainty as to just how far along they were on the road to having a nuclear device and as to how urgent the situation was, raising and lowering alarms like a conductor in a symphony. The Iranians are following the same strategy. They are constantly shifting from a conciliatory tone to an aggressive one, keeping the United States and Israel under perpetual psychological pressure. The Iranians are trying to avoid an attack by keeping the intelligence ambiguous. Tehran’s ideal strategy is maintaining maximum ambiguity and anxiety in the West while minimizing the need to strike immediately. Actually obtaining a bomb would increase the danger of an attack in the period between a successful test and the deployment of a deliverable device.

What the Iranians get out of this is exactly what the North Koreans got: disproportionate international attention and a lever on other topics, along with something that could be sacrificed in negotiations. They also have a chance of actually developing a deliverable device in the confusion surrounding its progress. If so, Iran would become invasion- and even harassment-proof thanks to its apparent instability and ideology. From Tehran’s perspective, abandoning its nuclear program without substantial concessions, none of which have materialized as yet, would be irrational. And the Iranians expect a large payoff from all this.

Radical Islamists, Iraq and Afghanistan

This brings us to the Hezbollah/Iraq question, which in fact represents two very different issues. Iraq constitutes the greatest potential strategic threat to Iran. This is as ancient as Babylon and Persia, as modern as the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Iran wants guarantees that Iraq will never threaten it, and that U.S. forces in Iraq will never pose a threat to Iran. Tehran does not want promises alone; it wants a recognized degree of control over the Iraqi government, or at least negative control that would allow it to stop Baghdad from doing things Iran doesn’t want. To achieve this, Iran systematically has built its influence among factions in Iraq, permitting it to block Iraqi policies that Iran regards as dangerous.

The American demand that Iran stop meddling in Iraqi policies strikes the Iranians as if the United States is planning to use the new Baghdad regime to restore the regional balance of power. In fact, that is very much on Washington’s mind. This is completely unacceptable to Iran, although it might benefit the United States and the region. From the Iranian point of view, a fully neutral Iraq – with its neutrality guaranteed by Iranian influence – is the only acceptable outcome. The Iranians regard the American demand that Iran not meddle in Iraq as directly threatening Iranian national security.

There is then the issue of Iranian support for Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Islamist groups. Between 1979 and 2001, Iran represented the background of the Islamic challenge to the West: The Shia represented radical Islam. When al Qaeda struck, Iran and the Shia lost this place of honor. Now, al Qaeda has faded and Iran wants to reclaim its place. It can do that by supporting Hezbollah, a radical Shiite group that directly challenges Israel, as well as Hamas – a radical Sunni group – thus showing that Iran speaks for all of Islam, a powerful position in an arena that matters a great deal to Iran and the region. Iran’s support for these groups helps it achieve a very important goal at little risk. Meanwhile, the U.S. demand that Iran end this support is not matched by any meaningful counteroffer or by a significant threat.

Moreover, Tehran dislikes the Obama-Petraeus strategy in Afghanistan. That strategy involves talking with the Taliban, a group that Iran has been hostile toward historically. The chance that the United States might install a Taliban-linked government in Afghanistan represents a threat to Iran second only to the threat posed to it by Iraq.

The Iranians see themselves as having been quite helpful to the United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as they helped Washington topple both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. In 2001, they offered to let U.S. aircraft land in Iran, and assured Washington of the cooperation of pro-Iranian factions in Afghanistan. In Iraq, they provided intelligence and helped keep the Shiite population relatively passive after the invasion in 2003. But Iranians see Washington as having betrayed implicit understandings that in return for these services, the Iranians would enjoy a degree of influence in both countries. And the U.S. opening to the Taliban is the last straw.

Obama’s Greetings in Context

Iran views Obama’s New Year greetings within this context. To them, Obama has not addressed the core issues between the two countries. In fact, apart from videos, Obama’s position on Iran does not appear different from the Bush position. The Iranian leadership does not see why it should respond more favorably to the Obama administration than it did to the Bush administration. Tehran wants to be very sure that Obama understands that the willingness alone to talk is insufficient; some indications of what is to be discussed and what might be offered are necessary.

Many in the U.S. administration believe that the weak Iranian economy might shape the upcoming Iranian presidential election. Undoubtedly, the U.S. greetings were timed to influence the election. Washington has tried to influence internal Iranian politics for decades, constantly searching for reformist elements. The U.S. hope is that someone might be elected in Iran who is so obsessed with the economy that he would trade away strategic and geopolitical interests in return for some sort of economic aid. There are undoubtedly candidates who would be interested in economic aid, but none who are prepared to trade away strategic interests. Nor could they even if they wanted to. The Iran-Iraq war is burned into the popular Iranian consciousness; any candidate who appeared willing to see a strong Iraq would lose the election. American analysts are constantly confusing an Iranian interest in economic aid with a willingness to abandon core interests. But this hasn’t happened, and isn’t happening now.

This is not to say that the Iranians won’t bargain. Beneath the rhetoric, they are practical to the extreme. Indeed, the rhetoric is part of the bargaining. What is not clear is whether Obama is prepared to bargain. What will he give for the things he wants? Economic aid is not enough for Iran, and in any event, the idea of U.S. economic aid for Iran during a time of recession is a non-starter. Is Obama prepared to offer Iran a dominant voice in Iraq and Afghanistan? How insistent is Obama on the Hezbollah and Hamas issue?
What will he give if Iran shuts down its nuclear program? It is not clear that Obama has answers to these questions.

Rebuilding the U.S. public image is a reasonable goal for the first 100 days of a presidency. But soon it will be summer, and the openings Obama has made will have to be walked through, with tough bargaining. In the case of Iran – one of the toughest cases of all – it is hard to see how Washington can give Tehran the things it wants because that would make Iran a major regional power. And it is hard to see how Iran could give away the things the Americans are demanding.

Obama indicated that it would take time for his message to generate a positive response from the Iranians. It is more likely that unless the message starts to take on more substance that pleases the Iranians, the response will remain unchanged. The problem wasn’t Bush or Clinton or Reagan, the problem was the reality of Iran and the United States. Only if a third power frightened the Iranians sufficiently – a third power that also threatened the United States – would U.S.-Iranian interests be brought together. But Russia, at least for now, is working very hard to be friendly with Iran.

[ Enlarge ] About The Author: George Friedman — Renowned author and futurologist Dr. George Friedman founded STRATFOR in 1996. Most recently, he authored the international bestseller, The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century. STRATFOR is a world leader in global intelligence. Their team of experts collects and analyzes intelligence from every part of the world ? offering unparalleled insights through their exclusively published analyses and forecasts. Due to its unrivaled analysis and accurate forecasts, STRATFOR frequently serves as a source for the media – and continues to provide daily intelligence updates and expert interviews for local, national and international media outlets and venues. Here is a sampling of recent citations that demonstrates the depth and breadth of coverage and recognition STRATFOR receives.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

The need for real diplomacy with Iran

By JustForeignPolicy.org

Notes:

Poor John McCain.

The “Hyena howling” by the convention delegates didn’t help. It just drowned an abominable speech.

Silhouetted in an awful solid blue background and resplendently bedecked in an expensive “elitist suit” without a FLAG PIN, John McBush delivered one of the worst speeches I have ever heard a U.S. presidential candidate make.

He was clumsy, un-inspiring and appeared ill at ease.

Compared to yesterday’s speech by the Killer From Wasilla (Sarah Palin), McCain looked old, stuffy and very much “Bob Dole Like.”

Simply put — this was a very badly delivered speech, lacking in specifics fraught with ineffectual choruses like “Fight With Me!,” … “Fight With Me!,” … “Fight With Me!” — useless slogans which will not work Mr. McCain!

After three days of juvenile negative attacks — and no mention of tangible proposals to fix the American economy or to fix health care — the most pressing issues this election cycle, the ReTHUGlicans are codling Americans for four more years of right-wing dictatorship, fear mongering and GOD sanctioned thuggery.

Jeffrey Toobin of CNN hit the nail on the head when he said: — “I thought it was the worst speech by a nominee that I’ve heard since Jimmy Carter in 1980. I thought it was disorganized, I thought it was it was theme-less, I thought it was very, very boring…I personally cannot remember a single policy proposal that he made because they had nothing connecting them. I found it shockingly bad.”

While listening to the speech Michael Crowley of The New Republic wrote: “It’s not over yet but this is a very underwhelming speech. Familiar points explained in pedestrian terms. No overarching themes–right now it’s sounding like a State of the Union laundry list. Even the crowd in the hall isn’t jazzed. This is the sort of reception Tom Ridge got.”

McCain’s willful mis-representation of Barack Obama’s positions, just like Sarah Palin did yesterday, a general lack of details on policies and, his GOD pandering to right-wing extremism didn’t amount to CHANGE, his new rallying cry — borrowed from Barack Obama, who has been using it consistently since the Democratic primaries.

The speech deteriorated pathetically when McCain embarked on a lengthy narration of his capture and torture in Vietnam, something he should delegate permanently to his surrogates.

The P.O.W. card …may only work with thug-bigots on the extreme right who love beating up on the weak, and/or the very old who are still clinging to cold-war nostalgia.

Thirty five year old war stories are stale and won’t work Johnny!, especially with Obama’s youthful base.

Who cares how and whether the VietCong broke your legs and arms — while caged like an animal in Vietnam, while America was losing another illegal war — a war that started when a European colonialist (France) asked Neo-European-Colonialist (America) to help it maintain a grip on it’s illegally acquired colony, resulting in Vietnam splitting into two, and causing the Vietnamese to slit each others throats — just like the Shia and the Sunni have been doing in Iraq.

It is also evident that McCain wants to have it both ways — “disembowel” Obama on one night, then brag about how he will bring change and bi-partisanship to Washington the next day! — Too many contradictions and too much confusion.

The right-wing snakes may like that, but I really doubt if McCain won any more independents last night with that kind of rhetoric, for that’s not CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

While the Killer From Wasilla exceeded expectations the other day, McCain clearly failed in delivering the biggest speech in his life.

I give Johnny a big C- …and only because he conducted himself with some decency, unlike the sadistic presentation by Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, who gave the keynote speech on Wednesday night.

The THUG of New York a.k.a “America’s Mayor” was exceedingly vicious!

—————————————————————-

Speech Reactions

REFERENCES:

1. Why McCain would be a mediocre president
2. The Real John McCain — Certainly, the convention that nominated him bore no resemblance to that John McCain. Rather than remaking George W. Bush’s Republican Party in his own image, Mr. McCain allowed the practitioners of the politics of fear and division to run the show.

   Sarah Palin’s Hypocrisy — On Pregnancy

   By Cagle Cartoons

   McCain/Palin ShotGun Wedding

   By Cagle Cartoons