Ukraine Conflict
While Muslims fight on the side of Ukraine, among them Crimean Tatars, Muslims also fight on the side of Russia, among them Chechens. Even if their intention is probably not to kill other Muslims, this is certainly a tragedy, and we ask ourselves who stands on the right side of history.
In the Western media the story sounds roughly like this: In icy Russia, which after the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War is disorganized and divided, a cold dictator, a new Hitler, has seized power over the last twenty years. His name is Putin. He first became director of the FSB, the successor to the KGB, the ruthless and cruel secret service of the Soviet Union. That says enough about the kind of person we are dealing with.
Afterwards he slyly and ruthlessly crept onto the Russian presidential throne. But even with that his hunger for power was not satisfied. He wanted to expand his Russian empire without limit and become a kind of new tsar. In 2014 he treacherously conquered Crimea, by manipulating the population through propaganda and using a — probably falsified — referendum as a pretext for the annexation of Crimea. In 2022 he takes the next step: the military conquest of democratic Ukraine.
But fortunately there is the noble NATO, which, under the leadership of the USA, courageously opposes this cold criminal. It tries to take Ukraine into its alliance, just like the other helpless Eastern European countries that joined earlier in order to protect themselves from the Russian threat. That is the Western narrative, and only idiots like Putin apologists dare to call it into question. But there is also another narrative. It likewise begins with the end of the Soviet Union in 1989 and goes as follows:
The Soviet Union did not really lose the Cold War. A complex interplay of internal and external factors led the Soviets to become weary of their own totalitarian society and to decide to dissolve the Warsaw Pact and break up the Soviet Union. In a sincere moment of political naivety, leading Soviets such as Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and the young Putin believed that the West would receive them with open arms; Russia would become their playmate on the great democratic playground of the free Western market. They quickly realized that the terms "democratic" and "free" are very relative in the West.
What they found was a velvet totalitarianism that in some respects was just as totalitarian as the Soviet Union they had just destroyed. NATO, supposedly founded as a counterweight to the Soviet Union, refused to dissolve when the Soviet Union dissolved. More than that: contrary to all implicit and explicit agreements made with Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin, NATO shifted its borders ever further eastward, toward Moscow.
The entire idea of NATO eastward expansion was developed by an American power bloc that pursued a great goal: the creation of a unipolar world in which a single superpower, the United States, controls and dominates the global geopolitical situation. The most important geostrategist was Zbigniew Brzezinski, a brilliant American professor who was born in Poland and whose deeply rooted aversion to Bolshevism brought everything to do with Russia to life. This is of course human, just as it is human and understandable that the inhabitants of the Eastern European countries transform their deeply rooted fear of Stalin and the Soviets today into the desire to belong to NATO.
Brzezinski was an advisor to several American presidents and headed various committees set up to implement the NATO plan. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, he explained his strategy in various articles and interviews: Russia must never again become a world power, and to prevent this, the country must be isolated from the Black Sea by expanding NATO eastward. In doing so, he adopted a Russian strategy that the European powers had already pursued in the nineteenth century.
When the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire lost strength in the 19th century, Russia prepared to fill the resulting vacuum and expand its sphere of influence across the Black Sea as far as the Mediterranean. This threatened the economic and territorial interests of the then superpower Great Britain. In the worst case, the British could even see their access to their colonies in the Middle East and India blocked by the Russians.
In this field of tension, the Crimean War began in 1853, a conflict between Russia on one side and a European alliance of the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Second French Empire, and the Kingdom of Sardinia on the other. This war is historically significant in many respects, among other things because it was the first industrialized and heavily propagandized war.
The industrialization of war (use of advanced firearms, delivery of war material by railway, use of sea mines, etc.) led to an enormous number of casualties, with estimates ranging from 400,000 to over 750,000 dead in just three years. It was no longer the military-tactical intelligence of the leading officers or the size and loyalty of the troops that determined the course of the war, but who had the most sophisticated war industry and technology, and not least the most effective propaganda apparatus.
This last point is the most interesting for us: the significance of propaganda. After the French Revolution and the replacement of the Ancien Régime by modern democracy, propaganda became an obvious instrument of power. The old elite did not really need to manipulate public opinion before the French Revolution. Public opinion was not so important. It had to massage and manipulate the population here and there, but ultimately the elite could enforce its policies without great justification. When the elite wanted to go to war, it simply informed the people, and the people had to accept it. God had willed it so: some were born to command, others to obey.
In the new, materialist worldview there was no longer a God, and the leaders could no longer rely on His authority to send people to war. The only way to enthuse the population for war was the large-scale manipulation of public opinion through propaganda.
The Crimean War of the 19th century was the first war in which modern propaganda was of decisive importance. Emerging technology for the first time gave the leaders the material means to manipulate the population directly and massively. The invention of the telegraph and the camera, as well as the rise of the mass media (above all the wide distribution of newspapers), enabled the European powers to bring vivid and convincing war stories illustrated with photographs to the home front within just five days. The Allies were very aware that such forms of war communication were decisive for public support of the war.
The real reasons for the European countries to go to war against Russia were primarily economic in nature. But these reasons alone would not suffice to overcome the population's fear of the horrors of war, nor would they lead people to be willing to pay the enormous amounts of tax required for the war. The European powers therefore decided to portray Russia as a military threat that urgently had to be stopped. The lie is commonly more effective than the truth when it comes to enthusing a population for war.
The propagandists spread carefully invented, threatening information about the Russian enemy among the population. The Russian soldiers were portrayed as outright savages and barbarians, and Russia as a radically expansionist power. Historians agree that this was a propagandistic and false portrayal of the facts. Once the war had begun, the propagandists staged triumphant war stories, supplemented by photographs and cleanly monitored by a military censorship apparatus: we are winning, the barbaric Russians are being defeated, humanity is triumphing, but not quite yet — pay war taxes for a while longer.
Russia at that time was inferior both in terms of industrialization and in terms of propaganda. It lost the Crimean War in 1856, and that also meant the downfall of Russia as a European great power. Only after the Russian Revolution and the rise of the totalitarian Soviet Union under Lenin and (above all) Stalin could Russia restore its position. This was the point at which Russia itself began to fully exploit the power advantages of industrialization, technology, and propaganda.
Now back to the core strategy during the Crimean War of the 19th century. The aim of the war was to deny Russia access to the Black Sea. Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary at the time, was the first to recognize the economic and strategic importance of the Black Sea for Russia and developed a military strategy based on it: block Russia's access to the Black Sea, and you block Russia's only ice-free gate to the Mediterranean and the rest of the world. In other words: if you can ensure that Russia no longer has access to the Black Sea, it will lose its economic and military power within a few decades.
The same motives are currently at play in the preparation of the war in Ukraine. Read the paragraphs above again: the current portrayal of the tensions between Russia and NATO is essentially a mirror image of the history of the First Crimean War. We will outline a series of facts about the lead-up to the current war in Ukraine.
At the beginning of the century, a neoconservative power group in the USA fell back on Lord Palmerston's strategy and attempted to permanently eliminate Russia as a great power: NATO was to isolate Russia from the Black Sea through a gradual expansion to the east. This strategy was developed by Brzezinski in 1989, immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, above all in his book The Grand Chessboard. In the same movement, the economic giants took another step. BlackRock, Vanguard, and Blackstone are heavily anchored in the American military industry, and since NATO's actions would almost inevitably lead to a war, they could also prepare for a new round of monstrous profits (at the expense of the American people).
In addition, BlackRock and Vanguard are also significant shareholders in the American construction companies Bechtel and AECOM, which at the beginning of the war signed contracts for the future reconstruction of Ukraine, after it had been almost completely razed to the ground by the war.
On top of this, BlackRock, McKinsey, and JPMorgan Chase jointly founded a reconstruction bank for Ukraine, which leads to the astonishing conclusion that the same companies that make a fortune from buying up Ukrainian agricultural land and its natural resources also profit immensely from the delivery of the weapons with which Ukraine was devastated, and ultimately will profit from the reconstruction of the country.
The grinding gears of this money machine have meanwhile crushed the bodies of more than a million young Ukrainian and Russian soldiers; the roar of the money press drowns out the groaning of thousands of tortured bodies, the sobbing of thousands of raped women, the screams of a country that bleeds from every pore of its fertile soil. The attempt to earn money is undoubtedly human, but at the top, where it is ruthlessly elevated to the highest goal, it takes on diabolical forms.
After the seizure of power on the Maidan in 2014 and NATO's progressive militarization of the entire Black Sea region, Putin anticipated the next step: after Ukraine, NATO would target Crimea. That meant Russia would be cut off from its fleet in Sevastopol. Putin did not wait but annexed Crimea by referendum and thereby strengthened Russia's military presence on the peninsula. Incidentally, Putin used social media and the internet for this referendum, which was the reason why Google and the social media afterwards significantly tightened censorship.
With the referendum, Putin won a significant victory, but also suffered an inevitable defeat in terms of image and propaganda. This step was portrayed in the free West as the final outbreak of an emerging dictator who was no longer content to tyrannize his own people but now set out on a campaign of conquest abroad. The proof was now provided: Putin is the new Hitler who wants to conquer all of Europe. This image was further reinforced when Putin made the next counter-move on the great global chessboard: the invasion of Ukraine.
Through this propaganda, a psychological base of support was created in the European and American population, impoverished by Corona and other crises, in order to gradually mobilize for a large-scale conflict with Russia, or in other words, for the Third World War. This global conflict is now also approaching on another front. In the Middle East, the same geopolitical strategy à la Brzezinski is preparing to complete another strategic line that is heading toward the endgame of the striving for geopolitical hegemony. There, everything is being prepared to flatten Iran.
Ultimately, we ask ourselves: what drives NATO, and in particular the American power bloc that has the say, to head toward a third world war? The causes of any war are complex, but on a certain level they are also simple. The USA still has military power, but economically it is rapidly losing its position. The USA is part of the economic power bloc of the G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States); their economic counterpart is the BRICS countries, including their arch-enemy Russia (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
To illustrate the economic decline of the G7 and the rise of the BRICS countries: in 1950 the G7 countries accounted for about 70% of the world market share, in 1990 this share fell to about 50%, and by 2020 it fell further to 40%. It is expected that the share will be about 30% by 2040. The BRICS countries are developing in the opposite direction. Before 1990 their share was negligible; after 1990 it rose to about 15%, and in 2020 it stood at about 30%. It is expected that the BRICS countries could surpass the share of the G7 countries by 2030. The already-mentioned American power bloc knows that the loss of economic power inevitably leads to a loss of military power. The only way to preserve power is to use the remaining military superiority to smash the rising economic power of the BRICS countries and thereby restore economic dominance. In other words: to provoke a third world war. The total annihilation of humanity and of humanity itself does not deter some from giving up their grasp on power.
To unleash this third world war, the war machine in turn needs the consent of the population and must manipulate public opinion. Here too: what drives people to war is a highly complex dynamic, but it is people who are involved in it, people who take the lead. This is happening in abundance in the light of the war in Ukraine. There are people who blow up a pipeline or a dam here and there, people who produce propaganda in all its diversity. People who propose a NATO Secretary General (the Dutchman Mark Rutte) who has already convincingly proven that he is ready to fully escalate the conflict with Russia. The man in question employs a war rhetoric that suggests he is not really inclined to empathize with the hundreds of thousands of war victims that the NATO strategy in Ukraine has already caused, nor with the billions of potential victims that it could still cause.
Besides the narratives listed above, however, there are still others. They view the events from a higher spiritual level. Seen from there, the above narratives are only two sides of the same coin.
In a certain sense, all world powers are players on the same 'Grand Chessboard' of Brzezinski. The rules of this chess game are set by the symbolic structure within which our global society currently operates: the materialist-rationalist worldview. No one can escape the power of this symbolic framework, neither Russia nor America, neither Europe nor China. They all employ propaganda, they all participate in the arms race, and they are all trapped in the inexorable logic of a market that is only ostensibly free. The problem lies in an ideology, a way of thinking, in a certain metaphysical force or a spirit. It lies in a worldview that reduces the entire world and existence to a material phenomenon, in which man is nothing more than a biological machine, a biochemical process without spirit or soul. In such a context, biological survival and the striving for absolute dominance without any ethical or moral limits easily become the ultimate goal. In this worldview this is also entirely logical: in a purely material world, ethics and morality are nothing more than an illusion that arises somewhere in the biochemical machinery of our brain. Why should we allow ourselves to be hindered in the great game of survival of the fittest? Anyone who views life through these glasses is already an instrument of destructive rage.
Ultimately, it is Dajjal who has once again created two antagonists from whose conflict he draws his benefit. Both NATO states and BRICS pursue the same agendas such as digital currencies, biometric registration, social credit systems, CO2 dictatorship, etc. Once again Dajjal makes his profit from war loans, weapons production, and receives in war zones a great supply of women and children for his prostitution and satanic rituals. Dajjal feeds on the suffering of humanity.
Once again a small indication that Dajjal and Freemasonic circles with a Kabbalistic basis have staged this whole war circus, and that the Ukraine conflict is slowly but surely developing into the Third World War, which is ultimately supposed to bring forth the world government. The probability that the date of all three wars sums to 68 is less than 1 in 20,000:
- World War I: 28.07.1914 — 28+07+19+14=68
- World War II: 01.09.1939 — 09+01+19+39=68
- Ukraine: 24.02.2022 — 24+02+20+22=68
Muslims should therefore not take sides in this conflict and thereby kill each other, but rather enlighten people about the hidden agendas of Dajjal and strive for what will ultimately defeat Dajjal: a caliphate under the leadership of a righteous leader. If, on the other hand, Muslims put their national interests in the foreground, and their own conception of Islam and what distinguishes them from other Muslims, they thereby stab the Palestinians and the entire Ummah in the back and will have to answer for it.
___________________________
Related articles:
