The political leaders of the European Union are entirely wrong about the Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe and the migration to the Union of people fleeing the war zones. Thierry Meyssan demonstrates here that these are not simply the accidental consequences of conflict in the wider Middle East and Africa, but a strategic objective of the United States.
The leaders of the European Union are suddenly being confronted with unexpected situations. On the one hand, terrorist attacks or attempted attacks perpetrated or prepared by individuals who do not belong to any identified political groups; and on the other, an influx of refugees who cross the Mediterranean, several thousands of whom die along their coasts.
In the absence of any strategic analysis, these two events are considered a priori as being unconnected, and are treated by different administrations. The former are handled by the Intelligence services and the police, the latter by Customs and Defence. However, they both share the same common origin – the political instability that reigns in the Levant and in Africa.
If the military academies of the European Union had done their job, they would have been studying the doctrine of its “big brother”, the United States, for the last fifteen years. Indeed, for many long years, the Pentagon has been publishing all sorts of documents on the “Chaos Theory” borrowed from the philosopher Leo Strauss. Only a few moths ago, an official who should have retired more than 25 years ago, Andrew Marshall, disposed of a budget of 10 million dollars annually to research this subject1. But no military academy of the Union has seriously studied this doctrine and its consequences. Partly because this is a barbaric form of warfare, and partly because it was conceived by one of the intellectual gurus of the US Jewish elite. And as everybody knows, the United-States-who-saved-us-all-from-Nazism can not advocate such atrocities2.
If the political personnel of the European Union had travelled a little, not only to Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Horn of Africa, to Nigeria and Mali, but also to Ukraine, they would have seen with their own eyes the application of this strategic doctrine. Instead, they contented themselves with speeches delivered from a building in the Green Zone of Bagdhad, from a podium in Tripoli or on Maïdan Square in Kiev. They have no idea what these populations are really experiencing, and at the request of their “big brother”, have often closed their embassies, thereby depriving themselves of eyes and ears on the ground. Even better, still at the request of their “big brother”, they have participated in embargos, thus ensuring that no European businessmen will travel to these areas and see what is happening there.
Contrary to what President François Hollande has declared, the Libyan migration is not the consequence of a “lack of follow-through” of operation “Unified Protector”, but the desired result of this operation, in which his country has played a leading role. Chaos did not evolve because the “Libyan revolutionaries” were unable to agree after the “fall” of Mouammar el-Kadhafi, it was the strategic goal of the United States, and they succeeded. There never was a “democratic revolution” in Libya, but a secession of Cyrenaïca. There never was an application of the UNO mandate aimed at “protecting the population”, but the massacre of 160,000 Libyans, three quarters of whom were civilians, under the bombardments of the Alliance (numbers from the International Red Cross).
Before I joined the government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, I remember having been solicited to act as a witness during a meeting in Tripoli between a US delegation and the Libyan representatives. During our long conversation, the head of the US delegation explained that the Pentagon was ready to save us from certain death, but demanded that the Guide be handed over to them. He added that once el-Kadhafi was dead, Libya’s tribal society would be unable to name a new leader for at least a generation, and that the country would be plunged into chaos such as it had never experienced. I spoke of this interview on a number of occasions, and since the lynching of the Guide in October 2011, I have never stopped predicting what is now happening.
When, in 2003, the US Press began to speak of “Chaos Theory”, the White House answered by using the term “constructive chaos”, suggesting that the structures of oppression must be destroyed in order that life might evolve without constraint. But neither Leo Strauss nor the Pentagon had ever used the expression until then. On the contrary, according to them, chaos had to attain such a level that no structure could be built without the will of the Creator of the new Order, in other words, the United States3.
The principle of this strategic doctrine may be resumed as follows – the simplest way to pillage the natural ressources of a country over a long period is not to occupy the target, but destroy the state. Without a state, there can be no army. With no enemy army, there is no risk of defeat. Thus, the strategic goal of the US army and the alliance that it controls, the UNO, is exclusively the destruction of states. What then happens to the populations concerned is not Washington’s problem.
Such a project is inconceivable for Europeans who, since the British civil war, have been convinced by Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” that it is necessary to give up certain freedoms, even accept a tyrannical state, to avoid being plunged into chaos.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have already cost the lives of 4 million people4. These wars were presented to the Security Council as necessary counter-attacks undertaken in “legitimate defence”, but it is accepted today that the wars were planned long before the 11th September, in the much wider context of “the remodeling of a greater Middle East”, and that the reasons given for launching them were in fact propaganda fabrications.
It is common wisdom today to recognise the genocides committed by European colonialism, but rare are those who will accept the figure of 4 million dead, despite scientific studies which attest to its accuracy. It’s because our parents were “bad”, but we are “good” and we can not be complicit in these horrors.
It is common practice to mock the poor Germans who maintained their trust in their Nazi leaders right to the end, and only learned of the crimes committed in their name after their country’s defeat. But we are doing exactly the same thing. We maintain our confidence in our “big brother”, and do not want to know about the crimes in which he has implicated us. Our children will certainly mock us in turn…
No West European leader, absolutely none, has dared to publicly express the idea that the refugees from Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Horn of Africa, Nigeria and Mali are not fleeing dictatorships, but the chaos into which we have deliberately, though unconsciously, plunged their countries.
No West European leader, absolutely none, has dared to publicly express the idea that the “Islamist” attacks which are affecting Europe are not the extension of the wars in the “greater Middle East”, but are directed by those who have also directed the chaos in this region. We prefer to continue believing that the “Islamists” are attacking Jews and Christians, although the great majority of their victims are neither Jews nor Christians, but Muslims. We calmly accuse them of promoting the “war of civilisations”, although this concept was developed by the National Security Council of the United States, and remains alien to their culture5.
No West European leader, absolutely none, has dared to publicly express the idea that the next stage will be the “Islamisation” of the drug market, on the model of the Contras of Nicaragua, who sold drugs to the black community of California with the aid, and under the orders, of the CIA6. We have decided to ignore the fact that the Karzaï family has taken the distribution of Afghani heroin from the Kosovar mafia and handed it to Daesh7.
The military academies of the European Union have never studied the “Chaos Theory” because they were prevented from doing so. The few teachers and researchers who risked exploring this territory were heavily sanctioned, while the Press qualifies the civilian authors who show interest in the subject as “conspirationists”.
The politicians of the European Union thought that the events of Maïdan Square were spontaneous, and that the demonstrators wanted to leave the orbit of authoritarian Russia and enter into the heavenly bosom of the Union. They were stupified when Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s comments were published, when they discovered that she spoke of her secret control of the events, and expressed her desire to “fuck the Union” [sic!]8.From that moment on, they were unable to comprehend what was going on.
If they had allowed free research in their own countries, they would have understood that by intervening in Ukraine and organising “régime change”, the United States ensured that the European Union would remain at their service. Washington’s great fear, since the speech given by Vladimir Putin at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, is that Germany will realise where its true interests lie – not with Washington, but with Moscow9. By progressively destroying the Ukrainian state, the United States has cut the main communication route between the European Union and Russia. You may look at the succession of events from any angle, but you will find no other logical explanation. Washington does not want Ukraine to join the Union, as Madame Nuland’s comments demonstrate. Its only aim is to transform this territory into a zone which is dangerous to cross.
So now we are faced with two problems which are developing very rapidly – the “Islamist” attacks have only just begun. Migrations across the Mediterranean have tripled in a single year.
If my analysis is correct, over the next decade we will see more “Islamist” attacks linked to the greater Middle East and Africa, doubled with “Nazi” attacks linked to Ukraine. We will then discover that al-Qaïda and the Ukrainian Nazis have been connected since their common inception, in 2007 at Ternopol (Ukraine). In reality, the grand-parents of both have known each other since the Second World War. The Nazis had at that time recruited Soviet Muslims for the fight against Moscow (that was Gerhard von Mende’s plan at the “Ostministerium”, or Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories). At the end of the war, both organisations were recuperated by the CIA (Frank Wisner’s programme with the AmComLib, or the American Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia) in order to carry out sabotage operations in the USSR.
The migrations across the Mediterranean, which for the moment remain a humanitarian problem (200,000 people in 2014), continue to increase to the point of becoming a serious economic problem. The recent decisions by the Union to go and sink the boats of Libyan drug traffickers will not serve to diminish the migrations, but to justify new military operations intended to maintain a state of chaos in Libya rather than solving the problem.
All this will cause serious trouble in the European Union, which today seems like a haven of peace. It is out of the question for Washington to destroy this market which it still considers indispensable, but to ensure that Europe will never enter into competition with it, hence the desire to limit its development.
In 1991, President Bush the elder asked one of Leo Strauss’ disciples, Paul Wolfowitz (as yet unknown to the general public), to elaborate a strategy for the post-Soviet era. The “Wolfowitz Doctrine” explained that the guarantee of US supremacy over the rest of the world demanded the curbing of the European Union10. In 2008, during the financial crisis in the United States, the President of the Economic Council of the White House, historian Christina Rohmer, explained that the only way to refloat the banks was by closing the fiscal paradises in the third countries, and then to provoke trouble in Europe so that capital would flow back to the United States. Finally, today Washington is proposing to merge the NAFTA and the EU, the dollar and the Euro, dragging the member states of the Union down to the level of Mexico11.
Unfortunately for them, neither the citizens of the European Union or their leaders have any idea what President Barack Obama is preparing for them. •
1 “After 42 years of service, Andy Marshall leaves the Pentagon”, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 24 January 2015.
2 “Selective Intelligence”, Seymour Hersch, The New Yorker, 12 May 2003.
3 “Stumbling World Order and Its Impacts”, by Imad Fawzi Shueibi, Voltaire Network, 5 April 2015.
4 “Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990”, by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Middle East Eye (UK), Voltaire Network, 11 April 2015.
5 “The “Clash of Civilizations””, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 4 June 2004.
6 Dark Alliance, The CIA, the Contras and the crack cocaine explosion, Gary Webb, foreword by Maxime Waters, Seven Stories Press, 1999.
7 “Karzai family hands over heroin trafficking to Islamic State”, Voltaire Network, 1 December 2014.
8 “What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?”, by Andrey Fomin, Oriental Review (Russia), Voltaire Network, 7 February 2014.
9 “The unipolar governance is illegal and immoral”, by Vladimir Putin, Voltaire Network, 11 February 2007.
10 This document is still classified, but its contents were revealed in “US Strategy Plan Calls For Insuring No Rivals Develop” by Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times, 8th March 1992. The daily also published large extracts on page 14 : “Excerpts from Pentagon’s Plan : ‘Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival’”. Supplementary information was provided by “Keeping the US First, Pentagon Would preclude a Rival Superpower” by Barton Gellman, The Washington Post, 11 March 1992.
11 “The attack on the Euro and the dismantling of the European Union”, by Jean-Claude Paye, Translation Evan Jones, Voltaire Network, 23 July 2010.
(Translation Pete Kimberley)
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.