Hans-Peter Raddatz is a well-known German scholar of Islam whose work has appeared previously in this space.
Below is the first part of a three-part essay by Dr. Raddatz about the EU, the Mediterranean Union, the Islamization of the West, and the deliberate engineering of the “Arab Spring” by the global elites to serve their own long-term goals. It was originally published at Die Neue Ordnung in pdf form, and has been kindly translated from the German by JLH:
Islamic Seasons and “Democratic” Global Policy
by Hans-Peter Raddatz
Part I: Democracy Breaks out in Spring and Summer
1. An Awakening on the Mediterranean
On the basis of pertinent scholarly and practical experience, this writer can fall back on an ever-dwindling knowledge resource, namely, the comparison of the twin marches through the institutions accomplished in recent decades by the so-called ‘68 generation in Europe and their radical counterparts in the Islamic world. In the course of this tandem process of marching separately but striking in unison, there has been an intensive ideological rapprochement of the leadership classes since the 1970s. Under US and UN aegis, they formed common Euro-Islamic facilities, which — under the rubric “intercultural dialogue” — infiltrated the institutions of member states. Through massive, primarily Islamic immigration and dictated notions of Muslim tolerance and abundant peaceful inclination, their populations were confronted with the fait accompli of a present increasingly burdened by the immigrants. Their perspectives — the more concentrated they are, the more radical they will be — will accustom EU administrations, the non-Islamic community and the state itself to the Islamic drive for dominance.
And so this dynamic scenario in the context of the double march through the institutions of the EU is dismantling its democratic structures and replacing them with the expansionist interests of the Islamic elites, in which process their swiftly growing economic and financial heft plays a central role. The goal of the “coming Caliphate” with the interim stage of the Mediterranean Union (2005) was targeted under the shared control of the EU commission and OIC general secretariat, encompassing all Euro and Islam residents. At the beginning of 2011, the “Arab Spring” broke out, and was supposed to be the direct “path to democracy,” a cliché propagated and subsequently fostered by the Western media, which embarked in summer, 2013 on an intensified and complicated continuation.
Within two years, the first contours of the actual Islamic drive to power and global political configuration became visible through the dissolving billows of the political media’s smokescreen. After the “dialogue” propaganda had systematically suppressed knowledge of the EU/US collaboration with the most important forces of radical Islam, which were subsequently introduced, it was then necessary to feign astonishment when the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists gained 70% of the votes in Egypt. This strong position, along with the special case of Palestine, had been built up through years-long, US/EU-supported subversion by the Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria, and was unleashed in the aforementioned “Spring,” which turned out in the first three countries to be similar to but weaker than in Egypt.
Since Libya and Syria deviated from this model, they had to be subjected to a special treatment by the “international community of nations.” Libya is shaped by an archaic tribal structure whose manageability was changed not at all by either the slain long-time despot Ghaddafi, or the “freedom fighters” who were bombed into power by NATO. Syria descended into a barbaric civil war which could not be resolved by the “Libyan” technique of carpet bombing. With an Alewite ruling family and close contact with an Iranian despotism following its ambitious atomic strategy and maintaining through Hizbollah partial control of Lebanon, Syria is a special case. It is the keystone in the Mediterranean Union. Its delayed realization, a.k.a. radicalization, is causing the drivers of the Euro-Islamic fusion to become increasingly impatient. In addition, there are direct connections to Russia and — through Iran — also to China, making the struggle for power in Syria a proxy war between primarily Russia and secondarily China vs. the USA primarily, and the EU secondarily. In the process, the Iranian interests of Europe are maneuvering the EU into some awkward shadow-boxing. Here too, a considerable role is played by the Muslim Brotherhood, which has not forgotten the massacre of Hama (1983) and has recuperated since then, with Saudi help. With other Islamists — chiefly Salafists and Al Qaida fighters from the Islamic area and Europe — it is an important factor in the “fight for freedom” against the (still) entrenched Assad regime.
In the summer of the “democratic path” on which the world of Islam allegedly is traveling, we are dealing predominantly with factors encompassing the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia on the Islamic side, and the USA and leading EU countries as well as Russia and Turkey in the West. Here, besides Russia — for example in the context of the G8 — there are mainly Western participants, while Turkey plays a complicated secondary role. This, because it is confronted with Syrian refugees and Kurds and the ruling party, the AKP, has inherited from its predecessors an affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood and the battle against Israel. This tradition continues in its foreign arm, Milli Görüsh, which presses its mosque politics forward in Europe — concentrating in Germany — as well as in connection with Al-Nusra (Arabic for “backup”) and Iraqi Al-Qaida offshoots which strengthen the anti-Assad front with Saudi, Qatari and Turkish weapons.
In this context, and noting the EU’s permanent declarations of loyalty, it is understandable that Turkish leader Erdogan sees himself as the neo-sultan, but it is also contradictory, since the EU must consider its auxiliary function on the way to the coming caliphate, and cannot serve two masters simultaneously. That is, the oriental tradition of long memory does not just play on the keyboard of bad colonial conscience, but also on the keyboard of good colonial conscience, which the successors of the Ottomans are playing for the Arabic region and, by doing so, creating mistrust. Just as Saudi Arabia contends with Iran for dominance on the Gulf, so long-lived Arabic resentment smolders against the Turks, who seem to be extending their 400-year hegemony by insisting upon their leadership role in the dismantling of Europe — a consummation they approach, as their entry [to the EU] becomes likely.
2. Growing Euro-Islamic Similarity
Under the Euro-Islamic-party-hack “dialogue” label, such points of view are subject to suspicion of racism or, at best, hate speech, and at the very least conspiracy theory. However, these compulsive ideas begin to fade with the tendency toward de-democratization and there is a softening of the high-pressure, worldwide war against Islamophobia — proclaimed in the Mecca summit of the OIC in December, 2005, adopted by the EU as a criterion of its foreign policy, and dictated to its member states as a guiding principle of its interior politics (cf. Bat Ye’or, Europe and the Coming Caliphate — Berlin 2013).
Outside of the political parties and the universities, the best indicators of this Islamocentric strategy of accommodation are the media and foundations, which — engrossed by obsessive modern thinking and proceeding against what remains of still extant indigenous structures in citizenship, family, law and church — are making the EU states and their societies “fit” for not only global employment and the consumer market, but above all for the leveling out under a unified culture that is both global and Islamophilic. A new priest corps of top journalists and TV moderators have taken over the implementation of mass indoctrination, supporting their own profiteering firms from the fees collected as “democratic levies.” And so we have an efficient variation on the severe corrupting of opinion and revenue, which utilizes Al Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and other channels which are not just Islamic, as well as prominent regional print media, thus closing the circle of the OIC-led, Islamocentric and Christian- and Jew-hostile strategy.
This development has for quite some time been pointing beyond the out-of-control party state as a “decadent form of the constitutional state” (K. A. Schachtschneider) to the preparation for the Euro-Islamic “path to democracy,” as it is pre-figured by the extremist tradition of the left-right people’s democrats and the Islamic-inspired successor version of the EU — a radical democracy in the sense of Rousseau-like educational dictatorship and with the implementation of the social-technical coding, or PC system à la Habermas and Luhman (cf. Bat Ye’or, Introduction). From this purely functional point of view, it seems quite natural that Islam not only “belongs to Germany,” but is also “co-owner of Europe,” making itself felt in the form of its growing presence in financial markets and national budgets.
In monetary standardization, violence cannot be a deciding factor, because all Muslims — especially Islamists — are on the same “path to democracy” as the Western societies. Under the unrelenting pressure of pro-Islamic propaganda — to which “there is no alternative” except Islamophobia — the reduction of thought conditioned by considerations of employment and consumerism gradually seems to these societies to be an accomplishment of ethical tolerance. It can even assure a future means of salvation, if we can believe Cardinal Tauran, according to whom “God is coming back to Europe with the Muslims.” This is not undisputed. In the first months of his tenure, Pope Francis gave different signals, suggesting rather an abatement of the excessive political “dialogue” and a return to the successful Catholic formula of pastoral care.
Here, we must consider the as yet uncontested anti-Christian financial power of the money aristocracy, which serves the above-mentioned avant-garde for global organizations (UNO, IMF, WTO) in expediting the structural change that can result in a neo-totalitarian world view — optimized as far as possible by taxes, that is, friendly to the precariat* and generally acceptable to the masses. Within this dynamic, self-energizing tendency which has been going on for half a century, runs an epochal rapprochement between Europe and the Islamic area of the Near and Middle East — in the case of Europe, through the de-democratizing action of the EU imperium; in the case of Islam, through narrowly confined democratization. This is less about a desired trend toward political emancipation than about gradual concessions made to the masses who have emerged through the facility of worldwide communication — concessions which are unavoidable in the long run. As a balance to that, increasingly “smart” algorithms arise which enable a drastically improved correlation of enormously increasing amounts of data and those extensive control dimensions revealed by NSA renegade Edward Snowden in the summer of 2013.
From this may be deduced a widespread power process which makes the Western and Islamic elites more similar, but can at the same time not preclude the historically increasing competitions in Islam as well as in the West. The increasingly aggressive attitude of Europe against America compels ideological demarcations and preferences which, in turn, become recognizable in the complex inner Islamic currents. Willi Brandt’s famous formula can be paraphrased to the effect that the power of similarizing “lets what belongs together grow together,” in this case, the Western-Islamic elites and radical democracy. Because the financial appeal of this structural change activates enormous potential in the institutions , which steadily make available new resources in the form of people, facilities and publications, a mainstream of corresponding breadth, variety and penetrating power has developed which assumes the task of achieving the old goal of “world community” on the model of Jacobin, Bolshevik and Nazi-fascist attempts, but now with the inclusion of Islam.
True, mainstream writing is limitless, but really only successful when the authors manage to follow, or possibly offer useful food for thought for, the mercurial twists and turns of the play of power in general, and the even more flexibly deceptive routines of the elites in particular. Its dilemma and at the same time its advantage, is in the logical pressure to sell Westerners on the pros and cons of their sacrosanct Islamic object — both as a region and as a wave of immigration — as completely risk-free, win-win investments, so that previous cons become present pros.
Since modern society is wholly ignorant of history, the Crusades can be used to imply a thousand year-old guilt, and the Cordoba culture to suggest an example of tolerance which built a glittering civilization a thousand years ago and could do it again, if it weren’t for Islamophobia. Since the former of these models continuously deprecates the clergy elite, and the latter masks the wringing dry of Jewish-Christian subjects in Islamic Spain, these two clichés serve the “culture dialogue” which preaches respect and acceptance so that it can represent the dhimmitude of non-Muslims — their Koranically mandated subservience to Islamic dominance — as tolerance, and can also present the Islamic system’s endemic lack of education, its poverty and its violence as long-term effects of Western exploitation, or at least ecclesiastical defamation. Because this requires a pettifogging command of the ideological landscape, it is here that the great mass of dialogic lightweights are separated from the cleverer minority, who are so much easier to identify, when their proxies in the MSM appear on the talk-shows of the media priests and on the lists of the appropriate award presentation ceremonies.
The essential advantage for analysis comes, of course, from the ideological dynamic which, perforce, like a physio-chemical reaction, must filter out those Islamic currents which invariably optimize the common self-reflexive trend toward radicalization and limit possible resistance to a reasonable amount. To clarify exactly what is meant in this context, we must introduce the constellation of Islamic “movements,” which are among leading contributors to the seasons of Spring and Summer, before we pass on to radicalization, to the evil of “academic discourse” in the second part on the metaphysics of radicalization. Proceeding from Kant, Baader, Hegel and Nietzsche, by describing the controversial long-term process of transformation by other-cultural influence and the Jewish-Christian resistance to it, it assesses which side will have to reckon with a Fall and Winter phase. The essential forces are delineated, which, according to “dialogue” propaganda, are driving Islam toward democracy in Wahhabism, Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood (ikhwan al-muslimeen).
Next: Allah’s Order and Democracy
* Combination of “precarious” and “proletariat.”
Previous posts by Hans-Peter Raddatz: