Chronicles of the Empire No.7
The Theory of the Clash of Civilisations and its Antidote: Secularisation
by Thierry Meyssan
How can 260 million citizens of the United States hope to dominate 6 billion human beings? Answer: by dividing to rule, by separating humanity into antagonistic civilisations. This is what Samuel Huntington and the U.S. National Security Council applied themselves to develop in Rwanda, then in Yougoslavia. Their theory of "the clash of civilisations" is the contemporary version of nazi racism. It is contaminating the majority of the planet. However, there exists a simple way to neutralise this: secularisation, which the strategems of the war of civilisations seek to destroy.
France is not only opposed to the bellicose politics of the Bush administration's "clash of civilisations". She is the bearer of an alternative model of internal social organisations and of international poliics which is secular. For these reasons, the Washington based National Security Council considers it a priority to isolate France from the international diplomatic game and to destroy the secular structure of its organisations.
What is the strategy of the "war of civilisations"?
In an article, published in 1993 in the journal Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington popularised the expression "the clash of civilisations" and later in a book of the same title, kindly sub-titled the remaking of the world order. Huntington is at the same time an adept of orientalist Bernard Lewis, of philosopher Leo Strauss and a former colleague of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Originally, Huntington was a military affairs specialist, who in 1957 wrote a surprising work, The Soldier and the State, in which he stressed that the military are essentially different from civilians to the extent that over the past few centuries they have become a different caste. There would no longer be a need for a conscripted military force because the military ethos would definitely be quite separate from that of the citizenry. Describing the society of his dreams Huntington explains that political power would no longer be held by those elected by an ignorant citizenry but instead by multinational corporations who have shown proof of their efficacity. However, since all problems would not be able to be resolved by the free market, the multinational government would have to rely upon the military caste both for its defence and for the conquest of new markets. When it was published, American intellectuals who did not believe in this theory described it as "modern fascism" and did not think it dangerous, since they presumed it impossible to develop a liberal economy within a military dictatorship.
Later, Huntington and his friends demonstrated the feasibility of their theories. In Chile, and later in Argentina, they advised the Pinochet and Videla juntas.
Eventually, Huntington worked at the U.S. National Security Council where he planned a classical imperial government strategy.
How can 260 million U.S. citizens hope to dominate 6 billion human beings?
Answer: by dividing to rule. The theory of the division of humanity into racial groups has been around for a long time, something else was needed. It was the divisions between civilisations. In the global society we live in today there is only one civilisation, apart from a few isolated tribes. There are large cultural, ethnic and religious groupings that are distinguishable, although they are interwoven. For example, in Mediteranean culture, there are distinguishable Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Jewish, Christian, Muslim and other sources, although they have become homogenised. Would it be possible to separate the individual elements of this mixture? Huntington and his friends applied themselves to testing this in Rwanda and in Yugoslavia.
In the past, "Balkanisation" described an inextricable mixture of diverse ethnic groups. Since experimentation in Yugoslavia "Balkanisation" means, on the contrary, the impossibility for diverse ethnic groups being able to live together, without ethnic fragmentation of their country.
Samuel Huntington suggested, therefore, the separation of human civilisation into distinct, religiously based, human blocs. The first targeted division would be to separate Jews and Christians on one side, Muslims on the other. At first glance, the alliance between Jews and Christians might appear difficult, given their conflict-filled past, but is an indispensable part of the imperial ambitions of the United States, since the population of the United States is principally “Judeo-Christian”.
The popularisation of the contemporary version of nazi racism.
Once the plan had been debated at the heart of the National Security Council, Huntington simplified his ideas for public consumption. Also, in his writings he modified the foundation of his reasoning. It was no longer necessary to say that the clash of civilisations has to be fabricated in order to facilitate the United States's imperialistic dominance over the rest of the world, but in order to convince the public that it is inevitable and that the United States must, therefore - against its own wishes - launch itself into the battle.
Doubtless, the theory of "the clash of civilisations" is the contemporary version of nazi racism. It is presently contaminating the entire planet. For instance, every time we express the idea that all Jews are the same, Christians too, and Muslims also, and when we claim that these groups are antagonistic to each other, we fall into the trap. This is particularly evident when we discuss the Palestine/Israel conflict. It is ridiculous to hold Jews in general responsible for the crimes of the Sharon government, or to claim that all Muslims are potential terrorists. To a lesser degree the ideology of "the clash of civilisations" causes a state of mental confusion which leads to perceiving similarities between disparate groups, so long as conflict results. This kind of reasoning opposes Jews, who are identified by their religion, to Arabs, who are a linguistic group. Or else, one opposes Islamists, who are a religious group to the Israelis who are a national group.
The destruction of the antidote to the poison: secularisation
There is a simple way to neutralise the "clash of civilisations": secularisation. The strategists of the National Security Council rapidly identified the antidote to their poison. This concept which was born in France, as a result of abominable religious wars, consists in separating personal belief from political life. It was constitutionally adopted by several countries which had also, in the past, endured appalling religious conflict, notably India and Mexico.
First of all, the U.S. National Security Council made sure that the only genuinely secular republic with a Muslim population installed on European soil, Bosnia-Herzegovina, was destroyed. The physical elimination of secular Muslim leaders was accomplished while they were replaced by a former nazi collaborator, Alija Itzebegovic. The latter accepted as an advisor a then unknown expert, Richard Perle, who later became an advisor to Netenyahu at Tel Aviv, and later to Rumsfeld at Washington.
Assisted by some members of the House and Senate, the National Security Council instituted the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Its director was Elliot Abrams, now Special Assistant to the President & Senior Director for Near East & North African Affairs. This Commission published various reports in which they accused secular France of persecuting minority religions, notably Scientology and Jehovanh's Witnesses. By high level intervention in international organisations, such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Elliot Abrams's colleagues demanded that France renounce secularism.
Recently, they found a fail-proof method to make France bend to their plan. Calling upon the networks of the United Grand Lodge of England, they have succeeded in inserting an original article in the proposed European Constitution. According to this article, No. 51, religious and masonic representatives will enjoy consultative political rights within the future European government. This constitutional treaty, if it is adopted, would have superior power to the French Constitution. It would, therefore, end secularism and would open the way to the clash of civilisations in Europe.
Thierry Meyssan
Journalist and writer, President of Reseau Voltaire: http://www.reseauvoltaire.net
Please continue for the original French version ...
The Theory of the Clash of Civilisations and its Antidote: Secularisation
by Thierry Meyssan
How can 260 million citizens of the United States hope to dominate 6 billion human beings? Answer: by dividing to rule, by separating humanity into antagonistic civilisations. This is what Samuel Huntington and the U.S. National Security Council applied themselves to develop in Rwanda, then in Yougoslavia. Their theory of "the clash of civilisations" is the contemporary version of nazi racism. It is contaminating the majority of the planet. However, there exists a simple way to neutralise this: secularisation, which the strategems of the war of civilisations seek to destroy.
France is not only opposed to the bellicose politics of the Bush administration's "clash of civilisations". She is the bearer of an alternative model of internal social organisations and of international poliics which is secular. For these reasons, the Washington based National Security Council considers it a priority to isolate France from the international diplomatic game and to destroy the secular structure of its organisations.
What is the strategy of the "war of civilisations"?
In an article, published in 1993 in the journal Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington popularised the expression "the clash of civilisations" and later in a book of the same title, kindly sub-titled the remaking of the world order. Huntington is at the same time an adept of orientalist Bernard Lewis, of philosopher Leo Strauss and a former colleague of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Originally, Huntington was a military affairs specialist, who in 1957 wrote a surprising work, The Soldier and the State, in which he stressed that the military are essentially different from civilians to the extent that over the past few centuries they have become a different caste. There would no longer be a need for a conscripted military force because the military ethos would definitely be quite separate from that of the citizenry. Describing the society of his dreams Huntington explains that political power would no longer be held by those elected by an ignorant citizenry but instead by multinational corporations who have shown proof of their efficacity. However, since all problems would not be able to be resolved by the free market, the multinational government would have to rely upon the military caste both for its defence and for the conquest of new markets. When it was published, American intellectuals who did not believe in this theory described it as "modern fascism" and did not think it dangerous, since they presumed it impossible to develop a liberal economy within a military dictatorship.
Later, Huntington and his friends demonstrated the feasibility of their theories. In Chile, and later in Argentina, they advised the Pinochet and Videla juntas.
Eventually, Huntington worked at the U.S. National Security Council where he planned a classical imperial government strategy.
How can 260 million U.S. citizens hope to dominate 6 billion human beings?
Answer: by dividing to rule. The theory of the division of humanity into racial groups has been around for a long time, something else was needed. It was the divisions between civilisations. In the global society we live in today there is only one civilisation, apart from a few isolated tribes. There are large cultural, ethnic and religious groupings that are distinguishable, although they are interwoven. For example, in Mediteranean culture, there are distinguishable Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Jewish, Christian, Muslim and other sources, although they have become homogenised. Would it be possible to separate the individual elements of this mixture? Huntington and his friends applied themselves to testing this in Rwanda and in Yugoslavia.
In the past, "Balkanisation" described an inextricable mixture of diverse ethnic groups. Since experimentation in Yugoslavia "Balkanisation" means, on the contrary, the impossibility for diverse ethnic groups being able to live together, without ethnic fragmentation of their country.
Samuel Huntington suggested, therefore, the separation of human civilisation into distinct, religiously based, human blocs. The first targeted division would be to separate Jews and Christians on one side, Muslims on the other. At first glance, the alliance between Jews and Christians might appear difficult, given their conflict-filled past, but is an indispensable part of the imperial ambitions of the United States, since the population of the United States is principally “Judeo-Christian”.
The popularisation of the contemporary version of nazi racism.
Once the plan had been debated at the heart of the National Security Council, Huntington simplified his ideas for public consumption. Also, in his writings he modified the foundation of his reasoning. It was no longer necessary to say that the clash of civilisations has to be fabricated in order to facilitate the United States's imperialistic dominance over the rest of the world, but in order to convince the public that it is inevitable and that the United States must, therefore - against its own wishes - launch itself into the battle.
Doubtless, the theory of "the clash of civilisations" is the contemporary version of nazi racism. It is presently contaminating the entire planet. For instance, every time we express the idea that all Jews are the same, Christians too, and Muslims also, and when we claim that these groups are antagonistic to each other, we fall into the trap. This is particularly evident when we discuss the Palestine/Israel conflict. It is ridiculous to hold Jews in general responsible for the crimes of the Sharon government, or to claim that all Muslims are potential terrorists. To a lesser degree the ideology of "the clash of civilisations" causes a state of mental confusion which leads to perceiving similarities between disparate groups, so long as conflict results. This kind of reasoning opposes Jews, who are identified by their religion, to Arabs, who are a linguistic group. Or else, one opposes Islamists, who are a religious group to the Israelis who are a national group.
The destruction of the antidote to the poison: secularisation
There is a simple way to neutralise the "clash of civilisations": secularisation. The strategists of the National Security Council rapidly identified the antidote to their poison. This concept which was born in France, as a result of abominable religious wars, consists in separating personal belief from political life. It was constitutionally adopted by several countries which had also, in the past, endured appalling religious conflict, notably India and Mexico.
First of all, the U.S. National Security Council made sure that the only genuinely secular republic with a Muslim population installed on European soil, Bosnia-Herzegovina, was destroyed. The physical elimination of secular Muslim leaders was accomplished while they were replaced by a former nazi collaborator, Alija Itzebegovic. The latter accepted as an advisor a then unknown expert, Richard Perle, who later became an advisor to Netenyahu at Tel Aviv, and later to Rumsfeld at Washington.
Assisted by some members of the House and Senate, the National Security Council instituted the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Its director was Elliot Abrams, now Special Assistant to the President & Senior Director for Near East & North African Affairs. This Commission published various reports in which they accused secular France of persecuting minority religions, notably Scientology and Jehovanh's Witnesses. By high level intervention in international organisations, such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Elliot Abrams's colleagues demanded that France renounce secularism.
Recently, they found a fail-proof method to make France bend to their plan. Calling upon the networks of the United Grand Lodge of England, they have succeeded in inserting an original article in the proposed European Constitution. According to this article, No. 51, religious and masonic representatives will enjoy consultative political rights within the future European government. This constitutional treaty, if it is adopted, would have superior power to the French Constitution. It would, therefore, end secularism and would open the way to the clash of civilisations in Europe.
Thierry Meyssan
Journalist and writer, President of Reseau Voltaire: http://www.reseauvoltaire.net
Please continue for the original French version ...