The “Great Middle East” and the anti-Islamic moment of the “clash of civilizations” (the Italian case)*

By Enrico Galoppini

In this historical post-bipolar phase, presenting the US attempts to impose a unipolar world leadership, in the so-called “West” [1] Islam is incessantly presented like a “problem”: political, social, religious sometimes even of public order. This images are aimed at creating alarm and concern about Islam, about the states with Muslims as majority of population and individual Muslims, exploit stereotypes sedimentary and possible to be reactivated, but also appealing to the more visceral moods (v. “The security emergency”): they are is created through a totalitarian and self-referential media apparatus because it is refractory to every true contradictive opinion, in order to facilitate, extorting a broad consensus, the realization of a world, in fact, “unipolar”.

To define this world forcibly reduced under a single superpower and, above all, its “model”, some use the term ‘globalization’, others ‘globalism’. The first is well-suited to the provision that requires the “free market” and “free movement of people”, while the second relates to the establishment of a “world government” (of which the UN is a first foreshadowing), a “world justice” (v. special courts for “war crimes” or “against humanity”, of course accusing only the losers), a “world religion” (with a single moral, that “Western” one, of “human rights”), a single “shared memory” of a single human type (“democratic”), with the differences reduced to folklore (while they are praised in words) of a world forcibly unified, deceptively ‘pacified’ and reduced to a “market”.

But if Europe, since 1945, has been placed under a partial control of those who long for such an outcome (and the EU, with the gradual overthrow of the power of the States that are yielding, it intends to complete the work started with the occupation of the West), then Russia and China do not take orders from their central decision-makers [2]: in order to achieve the control over the “heart of Eurasia” is therefore necessary to occupy – also in order to prevent the energy independence of Eurasia – the “belt” of states immediately behind Russia and China, many of which are predominantly Muslim. This is the famous “axis of evil”, which in fact included Iraq, later invaded, and still includes Iran, Sudan, Syria (and potentially other states), but also North Korea, located at the other end of the “belt”. These “rogue states”, after the alleged ‘Big bang of the twenty-first century’ of 11 September 2001 [3] (do not forget that the aggression of NATO in Belgrade was in 1999 …), should be associated with the official authors (that is ‘Islamic’) of the attacks in the US, in Europe and in the rest of the world.

Following these acts of terrorism and the subsequent media hammering, in the substantial areas of the Western public opinion became introduced the idea that although “it is not true that all Muslims are terrorists”, there is, still, the fact to reflect on that “all terrorists are Muslims“. Or rather what regards the ‘Islamic terrorism’ question, the “Islamic” identity of the bombers – who were familiar with the “Western values” (think that a certain Mohamed Atta lived in Germany etc.) – places a serious problem of “coexistence” and “integration” of Muslims within all “democratic West”. The asked question which we often hear formulated as follows: “How to make good European (or Western) citizens of Muslims?”; translated into simple words goes like this: “Can we trust the Muslims living among us?”.

The “problem” then ends up with becoming “of civilization”. And it is so easy to raise concern among European populations related to the substantial migration of Muslims, which is inflated to paroxysmal levels, providing the excuse for continued scaremongering charged to the presence, at home, of “dormant Islamic terroristic cells,” “fifth columns of al-Qa’ida,” only to discover that these are regular hoaxes [4] aimed at creating a mood functional military and geopolitical strategies to be pursued in the areas which are subjects of the Atlantic designs: the “enemy”, depicted as a mere criminal, for whom “international police” undertakes operations (the “war”, officially, is not done anymore to anyone) – becomes in such a way internal and external.

The concern, that is widespread in horse doses, (the felony of the false alarm often reaches the extremes) is about to be invaded and dominated by Islam and the Muslims. [5] Hence the mass misinterpretation of “preventive war,” which is not “war on who is going to do it” (we are told about Iran with its “atomic”), but prevention, by the United States, of the emergence of any new political powers, economic, cultural and military, capable to undermine the US unipolarity and, therefore, by their very existence, to impose a multipolarity in international relations and in the management of the resources of the planet according to the natural principles of freedom, independence, self-determination and sovereignty for all peoples-nations of the world, who in this perspective abhorred by the proponents of globalization and globalism would be free to choose, manage and direct their own future, choosing to cooperate for the common good.

 But the spread of the idea of Islam as a “problem” is successful because it feeds on abysmal ignorance, starting with the very meaning of the words “Islâm,” “Arab,” “jihad.” There are, apart from some “experts” little prepared and / or in bad faith, especially journalists, more precisely ‘correspondents’ (thus their directors) to sow the confusion, absolutely ignorant – just to detect an incredible gap – of Arabic language (when it does not concern the characters who, perfectly integrated, lead in effect an “information war”).

The media apparatus, therefore, in-forms, that is forms the minds of people unable to realize the size and the crime being committed and the fraud which they are exposed to during the invasions of Muslim-majority countries, and their extermination, and, what is worse (for a world that constantly chants the virtues of ”anti-racism”), the massacre of human beings (the relatives of immigrants whom we should “respect”!) guilty of not being – according to the prevailing clichés – “secular”, “democratic” and so on.

But to such an “anti-racism”, obviously, does not match any respect neither for human beings nor for the variety of cultures and their continuous revision: this is the real racism, which reduces to accounting (when it is correct!) the extermination of men, women, children demonized en masse (‘Muslim’ is by definition paradigmatic, not a real being), with the acquiescence of the “moderate” Islam, a kind of astuffed rabbit placed before a plethora of useful idiots (including ‘intellectuals “, some of whom are ‘exotic’) and the public that gives them credit.

 Therefore, there are two points to understand well:

1 – The misinformation about Islam [6] is aimed to divide, from the point of view of collective psychology, the populations of Europe and the Arab-Muslim, separate the shores of the Mediterranean, procrastinate endlessly the dichotomy “East / West” (‘the East’ is the ‘place’ of ‘barbarism’, the ‘tyranny’, for example, while the “West” is “THE Civilization”), when Europe, which instead of finding its natural political, economic and cultural complement in Asia and Africa, vanishes in the deadly embrace of the pseudoculture of globalization and globalism [7].

The puppeteers of this maneuver (if to contemplate over Italy, in particular that it is occupied by more than 100 (one hundred) US military bases [8]) are easily identifiable. When two quarrel the third benefits, and if Christianity and Islam are ideally opposed, to benefit from this are the masters of Europe and destabilizators – for sixty years and over – of the Near East, who for this purpose have created a territorial basis (the “State of Israel”) of Zionism, which is the real ideology in which Western elites must give handle to believe [9].

However, this result is reached not through the plotting of a sort of ” operational centre” with a single willpower, but through the cross action not at all coordinated – at least on a certain plane – of a whole series of subjects: what is most impressive is when you consider the actors of Islamophobic campaign underway in the Italian media and, more generally, “Western” one, is their extraordinary heterogeneity [10]. In fact, classifying them according to the usual philosophical and political categories, one finds oneself in a certain embarrassment because there is everything and the opposite of everything and, what is more remarkable, political and philosophic families are traditionally opposed to almost everything.

At first blush, it would be possible, therefore, to sustain that the agitation of an “Islamic problem ” for these subjects is just a detail, one of the few elements that they share by a fortuitous coincidence. But this consideration would destruct from the analysis of what Italy is now, or rather what is the political, intellectual and media class that this country begets and which solicitations it responds in the world geopolitical framework ushered in the nineties.

For the evaluation of each political, intellectual and media phenomenon of some significance that occurs in Italy, one always starts from the assumption that Italy is not a free, sovereign and independent country. It is from time immemorial (in the sense that the majority of Italians – lobotomized since the school – literally has no “memory” of what have happened sixty years ago), and gradually, until the ‘show’ of the “Clean Hands” which bumped off even the last figures of statesmen worthy of the name, that there has been a progressive engulfment of the last elements – even cultural – that connote freedom, sovereignty and independence of a country. From then on, Italy, reduced to a Metternich “geographical expression”, has produced a political class of no importance, with the contour of the inevitable flood of organic “intellectuals” and “opinion leaders” pundits from whose ranks were purged all those who – though they were not numerous even before – were not prepared to adapt to the role of “manufacturers of consent” in the context of the new round of the game between the US and Russia, which sees Italy deprived of that privileged position of the borderline enjoyed since the fall of the Berlin Wall. From that moment, anticommunism being no longer the driving Atlantic propaganda, there has been a sudden recycling of many “intellectuals” and “opinion leaders” (as well as the burst on the scene of the new evanescent characters produced from the abovementioned sixty years of ‘oblivion’) to the positions that, in one way or another, come together in creating a mood in which Islam (both faith and civilization), Arabs and Muslims must be perceived as a “problem”, or “the problem of problems.”

The reason is simple. Anti-communism could make sense as long as there subsisted a great “communist” power (but it did not make it, because the US has concocted a colossal scene to engage individuals otherwise unmotivated, making them feel “at risk”), but with Russia that has abandoned the role of the USSR and China which seems to prefer the competition on “global markets” to “communism”, there was a need, as a part of the renewed effort on the part of the mercantilistic powers (the USA and Great Britain, with the Zionist appendix which is an outpost of the so-called “West”) in the direction of the control of Eurasia (focused on Russia), in a new ‘grand narrative’ useful for the re-consolidation of the subjects of the West, primarily the Europeans , who basically do not have to figure out who they are to abdicate an active and autonomous role, embarked on an enterprise contrary to their natural interest in the history, geography and the development of civilizations, indicate leaning toward the direction of Eurasia (which also includes Mediterranean) but not to the pseudoculture of Globalization (economic and human) and globalism (cultural and value–based). In this new phase of a large ‘chess game, the zone of the countries with Arab-Muslim majority, which was previously subject to the influence of one or another contender, has become the first obstacle to neutralize so as to attack in following the main objective located beyond it. The creation of the “Islamic problem” therefore functions for a precise purpose: the demonization of populations inhabiting the area near the Middle East and of their civilization to destabilize a number of states, some of which are rich in energy resources [11]

I shall digress. Many Muslims are inclined to read Western media Islamophobia through the lens of ideology, using reductionist parameters “the West (Christian) hates us as Muslims.” In this one configures a position equal and opposite to that of those who feed the anti-Islamic propaganda, since it belongs to the level of ideological conflict (even if it is ‘stained’ with “religion”), namely the conflict between Good (Islam) and Evil (who attacks). Basically, many Muslims have a tendency to victimization, to represent themselves as the subjects of “racism” and “discrimination”; the same of which would be the subjects of other categories, we say, ‘disadvantaged’ … The question is however a bit more complex, because, regardless of the diverse parterre of ‘actors’ who fatten Islamophobic sentiment (that we analyze in following one by one ), it should be said that behind the spread of the “fear of Islam” there are anti-traditional “forces’ [12] that by exploiting the economic and financial, propagandistic and military power of the West aim to harm Islam because in it resides the last bastion of tradition that can oppose the dissolving forces of the “end of a cycle.”

It should, therefore, not be excluded at all – as certain academic analysts do – that to maneuver anti-the Islamic campaigns there are engaged “anti-traditional,” “counter-initiatory’ circles, accustomed to ‘disguise’ behind the guise of a cultural party or an organization.

On a less “subtle” level, but subordinate, it is clear that for the reasons of geopolitical order there should be identified the main motive of those who have interest in presenting in front of public opinion Islam as a “problem”.

That having been said, let’s see who are the various ‘actors’ involved, more or less consciously, in the misinformation about Islam and Muslims. Of course, being the so-called “public opinion”, the sum (and the result of the interaction) of indefinite series of “opinions”, for the creation of a functional frame of mind necessary for the purpose, was, so to say, a differentiated propaganda offer, which explains the varied composition of the ranks of those who (sometimes fiercely) disagreeing on other points, compose the front of the Crusaders of Uncle Sam. Having established in principle their good faith (even if it is the case of overpaid individuals, which are not few), let us review them:

a) The Americans in pectore and the champions of the pro-American bias, i.e. the “Americanists” (the same who accuse in “anti-Americanism” all that they hate, enduing it with a caricature in order not to deal rationally with the arguments) [13]. They may belong as to the “right” so to the “left” in as much we are in the presence of representatives of the two fronts that share the ‘monotheism of the market’ and the discourse on Islam (and all the non-Western world) carried out by the radicals, but through the fanaticism that typically characterizes the neophyte, there can be distinguished the former orphans of the “revolution” of 1968, now consistently engaged in “the liberation of woman,” and forming the “civil society” (as if men and women that constitute Islamic societies would deserve respect compared only to the extent to which they conform to a “democratic” model). In this sense, Oriana Fallaci was not out of her mind identifying in Islam a world view that establishing separate roles for males and females brings out the character of dis-order of the so-called “equality” postulated by feminists (of any political color) and by males making themselves comfortable in this irresponsibly convenient position. Among the supporters of this position there are different gradations, both as for the position to be taken against the Arab-Islamic countries (e.g. not all are for the use of the military intervention), as for that to be taken towards the communities of Muslim immigrants (Fallaci, as is known, she preached the expulsion, but other “Americans” with K type Veltroni rise to bards of “multicultural society”). In this camp there also stands out “bipartisan” activism of those who seeing in the West the inevitable and desirable of anchoring “freedom”, or at least the “system with fewer defects,” sponsor the tour of “dissidents” of this or that Arab-Muslim country, or launch from radio and TV the campaigns of “awareness” on various issues ranging from the “Somali woman to be shortly stoned ‘to’ ‘an Afghan condemned to death for converting to Christianity.”

b) There are many more points shared with the abovementioned persons than we could look after, we then find the gospellers of new global optimism, the activists of the “counter-information” in the net, Perugia-Assisi marches and Social Forum (“another world is possible “!), in addition most workers of the ONG support the “orange revolutions” and “exporting democracy” on a global scale [14]. It involves the awareness that does not appreciate economism and the reduction of the world to the ‘market’, but does relish the “democracy” and “civil society” to be developed at all latitudes, and they are in agreement with those of the clause a), but propose this realization ‘from bottom‘.

Therefore we find them in the forefront of those pushing for a “democratization” of Muslim societies (in that they may interact with such transverse subjects as Radicals), and in raising awareness of the “issues” read, from their point of view, as “humanitarian emergencies” (v. the case of Darfur and, again, the “women to be liberated”).

At one time they would be referred to as “Catholic Communists”, except that communism is gone, but their reference points being still of “globalist” nature(partially it refers to “Catholic left “), they end up – though not willing to declare themselves “Americans” – to row in the same direction, namely the imposition of a secular “unique model”, with religion reduced to a tinsel of intimate and “social” type. Their monotheism is that of “human rights” (that is why they are for “gay rights” etc.). So, basically, they do not ‘mystically’ believe in West as do believe those referred to in the clause a), but they believe in the fundamental goodness of the idea (western) of “Progress” in its version “of equity and solidarity”.

Opposing the war as long as that is being prepared and threatened, once it actually bursts out they dissolve like mist on the sun, because at that point “neither nor” makes sense no longer. Never mind: the aggressors will soon impose a puppet government there, criticizing which they can continue to ‘stand out’; but the only thing they will never do is the defense of a legitimate government, “lay” (Ba’athist, Iraq) or “Islamic” (Hamas, Iran) that, since between them there always hovers a priori a basis of anarchism and aversion towards the “power”, which makes their position actually ‘impolitic’ and not very effective, meanwhile there is, politically, a position to take by choosing the “main enemy.”

c) As a further determination of the clause a) we have then the “liberals” of Pera and Ferrara declining Christianity in the sense of identity. These brand new ‘converted’ are not the least interested in the “faith”, but when it comes to have a down on Islam they instrumentally make of Pope and high Vatican hierarchy oracles, and the latter find no embarrassment in the fact that these their new followers demonstrate a total disregard for the “Christian values” in their actual lives, and, in some cases, exhibit their atheism (are so-called “devout atheists”). These circles, who also entangle the turncoats of socialist and communist ‘diaspora’ (to call oneself “liberal” is very chic), do not take kindly to the subjects of the clause b) (the “kind souls”), because for them the most appropriate method to solve the “problem” is the military one (perhaps preceded by ‘sanctions’, which will be criticized by those of the clause b) but only because of “the suffering imposed on the civilians”). However, ones bleating “neither Bush nor Saddam”, “neither Sharon nor Hamas” and so on having foot in both camps, others invoking the removal of “Hitler” of the day, perform two actions that complement each other [15], since the former manage the discontent that a war inevitably engenders, the latter give free rein to the ‘petty bourgeois’ drives of a nationalism of tramps who rears the tricolor over the bases of the Italian colonial troops following Anglo-Americans [16]. It should also be noted that these “liberals”, thanks to the joint plotting of think tank of the Curia, tell a fictionalized history of relations between Europe and the Arab-Muslim world characterized by only a few ‘highlights’ (Lepanto, for example, or the sieges of Vienna), nevermind of the rest.
To those ones the epithet “Christianists” applies well: while advocating the mention of the “Judeo-Christian roots of Europe” (never Greco-Roman!) in the preamble to the Constitution of the EU [17], they see everywhere (except in Palestine …) [18] “persecuted Christians (by Muslims)”, thus pointing to exclude Islam from the European imagination, rending it ‘alien’ and therefore dangerous. [19]

d) At this point it cannot but be mentioned the Vatican, which cannot but control the work of these ‘think tanks’ who call themselves “Catholics”; some, apparently in a contradictory way, convey a positive image of the multifaceted American religiosity, its forms of aggregation and relationships that these establish with the State: it seems that even here the monotheism of “market” has digested the presence of the “sects” and “religious supermarket” … [20].
But far more serious was the example of Pope Wojtyla, who first “condemned” the war with Iraq, then he received Bush, who awarded him the highest honor of the White House (as the Dalai Lama…), while the successor Benedict XVI goes proclaiming the need to bring to the world the “human rights”, meanwhile, logically, the “human rights”, designed in the “lay” circles, are not exactly the “rights” that a belief in God should postulate and defend [21] . So this is how a “Western ideology” delineates itself, that in other post I have defined as a “progressivist concoction of undigested Christian religion, economic liberalism and human rights, with various religious self-made advocates of the latter and a number no less considerable of ex-secular all of a sudden found themselves to be fervent Catholics”[22]. But I had forgotten one thing: Zionism and the Holocaust, that every good “Westerner” must idolize [23]. In this sense, the example was given by the Popes, genuflecting to the “elder brothers” of the Lobby engaged in the Crusade of Uncle Sam (v. the continuous media polemics against the Catholic Church conducted by the lobby, from the “silence of Pius XII” to the new missal “disrespectful” towards Jews, etc.).
Within the more intransigent Catholic world, then there are some “traditionalists” circles equally adverse to Judaism (and Zionism) and Islam, in the name of the “true religion”; this is a position that – in its grave misunderstanding of the “transcendent unity of religions” [24] – at least has its consistency, that does not rule out a critique of the Anglo-American-led wars (seen as bearers of “atheist” and “materialist” civilization) around the Islamic world; however, only a portion of this sector avoids taking part in the Crusade of Uncle Sam (this is the difference which occurs between St. Pius X, who publishes “Sodalitium”, and the Catholic Alliance, with the second only providing “intellectual troops” to the pro-Zionist and American “right wing”) [25].

e) We then find a transverse presence, that of Judophiles and Philosemites (conveniently and / or convinced) that defending the Zionist Entity [26] they exalt its function as an outpost of “Civilization” (“West Judeo-Christian “) in the middle the “barbarism” (“Eastern Islamic “), although not all have the courage to admit it. Awareness of this type is discernible a bit everywhere, from an American Guzzanti who composes “odes to war” at the sight of the mangled bodies of Lebanese children [27], to those who, by identifying in the so-called State of Israel the right of compensation for “Holocaust”, believes that while in the midst of numerous unjustified “errors” and “acts of violence”, it has a right on its own ‘security’:“the right of Israel to exist” is thus an indirect way to declare their involvement in the anti-Islamic alliance, as once assumed this position one can not but “condemn” Hamas (winner of “democratic elections”!) for all that it does, and “distance oneself” from Ahmadinejad, “Holocaust denier” [28 ]. That’s why among these subjects there are ranked the professionals of “friendship for Palestine” and of the” two states for two peoples”, who want a “secular” and not “Islamic” Palestine alongside an “Israel” for whatever miracle turned peaceful and willing to live with the Arab-Muslim neighbors [29].

f) A quaint presence in the varied framework of those in Italy who agitate against the “Islamic threat” is that of the “neo-fascists” (or “post-Fascist”, or “right radicalists” or anyway staging the caricature of Fascism according to the role reserved for them by the rhetoric of antifascism). These subjects, viscerally hated by those of the clause b) (and vice versa), but also by the “left” component of the clauses a) and e), are particularly sensitive to the issue of “our roots” and “our identity” ,ethnic and / or religious; so, they are in partial agreement with the subjects of the clause c) as supporters of the “Christian roots of Europe” in the sense of identity, but not in their Judophilia, whereas in Alemanno who goes on vacation in the kibbutz, raises the Zionist flag on the Capitol (and spends more time with Pacifici then with wife!) and the advocates of “small countries”, and up to Borghezio, that from Islamophiles become Islamophobic, on the one hand, and the followers of Forza Nuova and the like, on the other, there is a common aversion to Islam but there is no unified position towards “Israel”. All of these circles, radically hostile to “Turkey in Europe” [30] and the immigration of Muslims, and lovers of ‘identities’, provided they are artificially invented and then mummified [31], are characterized by grotesque manifestations of Islamophobia but, in a sense, less insidious than the “Christianists”: the “Corriere” (which hosted the articles of Fallaci) certainly does more damage than the ‘Padania’. Among other things, these equivocal circles provide yet another caricature of Fascism, which was not Islamophobic [32], but – in addition to having a geopolitical Mediterranean vision and, why not, Eurasian – cared about sovereignty, independence and freedom of Italy from foreign interference and would at least have sent into internal exile the ridiculous Crusades of Uncle Sam of a small electoral cabotage of a banana republic!

g) Finally, to be fair, here should also be mentioned some Muslims. In this area there can be distinguished those who voluntarily work for the creation of “Islamic enemy” and those who do so involuntarily. Among the former are included the so-called “good Muslims”, namely those ‘armchair Muslims’ that tickled in their urge for attention are carried around (especially by those of the clause c)) as a circus freak to show that even Islam produces “liberal,” “secular Muslims”, thus ‘respectable’ and ‘evolved’ individuals. Once assumed this role as testimonial of Islam ‘as it should be’, the various Magdi Allam are unleashed in a real hunting for the plague spreader that requires every Muslim to have no more ideas about anything that surrounds him, otherwise he is pilloried as “fundamentalist” and “public danger” (the action of the Egyptian journalist focuses primarily on the Muslim immigrants and Islamic associations in Italy, but in practice there is no escape for anyone, including some academics little aligned with the “West” and, in particular, “Israel”) [33]. An action that unintentionally – at least on the level of men – still has to be in the same direction, is that of the hard-core ‘Islamists’ (“Salafi”, “Wahhabis”, “Takfiris”, “Deobandi”, etc., all united by “modernism” and aversion for the Metaphysics), who, among the Muslim immigrants (and with all due respect to other Muslims also critical of the Globalization and internationalism but attentive to the geopolitical interests of their countries) [34], become the standard-bearer of the more politicized Islam movements having (I wonder why …) the base in London and who, hypermediatizated by an information system totally subordinated to the Atlantic interests, stage perfectly the “clash of civilizations”. For these individuals, who go from the Imam of Carmagnola to the butcher of Porta Palazzo (as naive as narcissists) should be coined the definition of the ‘Saracens of Uncle Sam “[35]. That said, the damage to those who adopt an interpretation of Islam undermined by reductionism (which fits together with the rationalism in the name of “anti-superstition”) and a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ‘Tradition’, extends its negative action on the populations of the same Arab-Islamic world, who ‘converted’ to a mass ‘Islamic ideology’, on the one hand undermine any possibility of “encounter” with other traditions, thus favoring the “clash of civilizations”, on the other prepare the ground, due to the ‘dryness’ of their vision and their ‘fanaticism’, for the progressive abandonment of religion, thus producing a very curious result, that of the “secularization”.

 

2 – After the first section, in which we have analyzed the various actors, with their combined action (even amidst mutual contrasts), produce a feeling of hostility towards Islam in the non-Muslim populations, and, as implying the term, the disaffection of Muslims themselves to the religion, we pass to the second section.

Europeans must be distracted from their real problem: the persecution of their freedom, independence, self-determination and sovereignty, political, economic, cultural and military. They must not understand who they are. For this effect they must embark on the others’ wars, playing the role of the ‘crusaders for third parties’ (the’ Crusaders of Uncle Sam “). This nightmarish reality can come true also and because the peoples of Europe, indoctrinated by a decades-long propaganda that has weakened the character and the will (the “past that does not pass”, e.g.), no longer they generate a political class that acts in their interest, the statesmen worthy of this status: it is no coincidence that the current effusive demonstration of “friendship” for “Israel” coincides with the lowest point recorded in relationships, at every level, between Europe (and Italy, in particular) and the Arab and Islamic world, reflecting the role of the territorial basis of Zionism as an element of destabilization of a strategically and economically important area (and not to the contrary, as some “contrinformants” would like to see: that is “Israel” would be the great manipulator of everything and everyone …) [36].

Globalization and internationalization, “market” as the only existential destiny and religion of “human rights” (more than a parody of “Holocaust”), are therefore the references of those who have interest in misinforming about Islam and generating continuous alarms, in order to achieve concrete economic, strategic and geopolitical objectives (other than “clash of religions”!) and, ultimately, eschatological objectives [37]. The traditional Islam, for its refractoriness to ‘Market’ and all the parodies of the “sincere Cult” (from those of “modernist” to the “New Age spiritualism”), is certainly hated by the headquarters of globalization and internationalization [38]. The Muslims are measured by the extent of their faithfulness to Islam and not worshiping money, not bowing their head to the system of usury, which not coincidentally is imposed whenever the ‘liberations’ come to [think of the fate of the “new Libya”, finally “indebted”]. It is clear that if the reference point is heavenly, the life of this world cannot be reduced to a continuous trading on all levels. A properly oriented man can not exchange this world for the only conceivable horizon, and when you consider the existential despair of many “modern” people, is must be considered that behind the representation of Islam in a bad light hides the intent to foreclose the access to a possible way out of the doldrums of the “modern world”.

The efforts to harm Islam, and ultimately the man in search of a connection with the divine, operate on many different levels, including those of someone trying to convince Muslims of the need for an “up to date” Quran through a “new exegesis” of the Quranic text extrapolating a “spiritual Quran” (that of the Meccan Suras) distinct from the rest, “legal” (which” should be deleted”). It should however be said that even if seemed successful, these attempts are actually illusory because the Truth is not in the least tarnished by the error, however, on a relative level they certainly produce damage, which is good to be aware of.

The analytical framework set out above lends itself for the further consideration and study, but what was of an interest here, is to explain that at the agitation of the “Islamic problem” there toil a congeries of political, media, cultural and religious circles not at all coordinated, so that it is not uncommon to find them at odds on other topics (think of the Radicals and the Curia). Yet, the creation of the “Islamic” problem answers the need of the Atlantic propaganda, that after the success of the “communist threat” (in the United States it guaranteed the waves of purges, while abroad it was justifying anything from the Christian Democrats governments in Italy to the coup d’état in Chile with its bloodbath) the “American party”, this sheer cancer of the Nation, enlists in a new villainous undertaking in which Italians (and Europeans) have the usual part of the background actors in the film already seen, which end, however, is not obvious, because the outcome of the match for the control of Eurasia will depend on the freedom, independence, self-determination and political, economic, cultural and military sovereignty ofItalians, Europeans and of all the peoples of the world.

NOTES

* This is a revision in the light of the subsequent reflections of the author, of the final chapter of the book of essays and articles by E. Galoppini, Islamophobia. Actors, tactics, goals, Ed. All’Insegna del Veltro, Parma 2008 (http://www.insegnadelveltro.it/catalogo/metropoli/galoppini_islamofobia.htm), presented at the conference The fragmentation of the planet and the multipolar alternative organized by the magazine “Eurasia” in Milan September 27, 2008. This latest version is provided to the students of the “Master Mattei”, University of Teramo (AY 2012-2013).

[1] The critical literature on the notion of “the West” is rather broad. It is recommended to read the book by F. Cardini, L’invenzionedell’Occidente {The Invention of the West}, Solfanelli, Chieti 1995 (recently reprinted by Il Cerchio).

[2] See. “Eurasia” 2/2005 and “Eurasia” 1/2006, respectively dedicated to Russia and China (the site of the Journal of the Geopolitical Studies http://www.eurasia-rivista.org).

[3] The literature on the 9/11 is very wide. To realize the absurdity of the official version, just visit the relevant section of the site www.luogocomune.net and read the book (plusdvd) 11 Settembre inganno globale {September 11 global deception}(Macro Edizioni, Diegaro di Cesena, 2006), written by Massimo Mazzucco, the animator of the site “Luogocomune.net”; Mazzucco is also the author of the preface of the book by Alessandro Lattanzio, Terrorismo sintetico {Synthetic Terrorism} (Ed. all’insegna del Veltro, Parma 2007).

[4] See. C. Corbucci, Il terrorismo islamico in Italia: realtà e finzione {Islamic terrorism in Italy: fact and fiction}, Agora Publishing Group, Rome 2003 [now expanded into a truly definitive volume on the subject of over 1,700 pp., Entitled Il terrorismo islamico. Falsità e mistificazione {Islamic terrorism. Falsehood and deception}, Agora Publishing Group, Rome 2012].

[5] There was even coined the term “Eurabia” to describe how Europe “invaded” by the Arabs and Muslims will “end up”. See L’Europa si chiama Eurabia{Europe is called Eurabia}, interview with B. Lewis in the “La Stampa”, June 25, 2006; Bat Ye’or, Eurabia, (trans. it.) Ed. Lindau, Torino 2007.

[6] Including the one that endlessly embroiders about the “differences” between Shiites and Sunnis etc. and which also is considered by the “experts” credited by some universities.

[7] See. T. Graziani, La création de l’ennemi Islamique the dans le cadre de la géopolitique USA pour la domination worldwide, published as an appendix to T. de la Nive, Les Croisés de l’Oncle Sam, Ed. Avatar , Paris 2003 (trad. it. to “The Nation Eurasia”, n. 6, July 2004 (http://lanazioneeurasia.altervista.org/archivio/LNE1-6.zip).

[8] See. Mariantoni A.B., Dal “Mare Nostrum” al “Gallinarium Americanum”. Basi USA in Europa, Mediterraneo e Vicino Oriente {From the “Mare Nostrum” to the “Gallinarium Americanum”. US bases in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Near East}, “Eurasia” 3/2005, pp. 81-94. . See also the subsequent entry of the same Mariantoni: Basi americane in Italia: una messa a punto{American bases in Italy: a setup}, “Cpeurasia.org”, February 24 2008 (http://www.cpeurasia.eu/305/basi-americane-in-italia-una-messa-a-punto). See also the site http://byebyeunclesam.wordpress.com, dedicated to the presence of NATO bases in Italy.

[9] And in this there are unite – it should be remembered – “Jews” and “non-Jews.” See E. Galoppini, “Stato d’Israele” o “Entità Sionista”?{“State of Israel” or “Zionist Entity” ?}, “Eurasia” 3/2006, pp. 185-195.

[10] See E. Galoppini, La questione irachena e la crisi politico-morale italiana, {The question of Iraq and Italian political-moral crisis}, “Italicum”, Sept.-Oct. 2004.

[11] According to the well-known Jew British scholar of Islam Bernard Lewis, this group of countries would represent the so-called “Arc of Crisis”, mainly inhabited by Muslims including inciting separatism and guerrillas ‘Islamic’ in anti-Soviet function (exploiting the theme of the communistic “atheism”), actually anti-Russian. Therefore stands out the importance of the ‘Islamic belt’ around Russia, first to its use for alliances (think of the Baghdad Pact of 1955, which included Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan), then to invade once that became uncontrollable (think of Ba’thist Iraq or Islamic Rep. of Iran), playing on the card of the wars between these subjects in order to breaking them down simultaneously (in the case of the Iraq-Iran war, 1980-88).

[12] in the sense of ‘Tradition’ interpretation provided by authors such as R. Guenon, T. Burckhardt, F. Schuon, M. Vâlsan and others, who constitute the ‘current’ of the “Perennial Philosophy”.

[13]. M. Tarchi, Contro l’americanismo {Against Americanism}, Laterza, Roma-Bari 2004.

[14]. E. Galoppini, Quando «controinformazione» fa rima con «confusione» {When “counter information” rhymes with “confusion”}, “Aljazira.it”, 10 October 2004 (now on Url: http://www.arabcomint.com/quando.htm) .

[15] Moreover, the subjects of the clause b) are “pacifists” and “anti-fascists”, and having internalized the image of Fascism as “absolute evil”, fail to adopt decisive arguments against the “hitleralization of enemy» to the point that they themselves accuse of “fascism” or “Nazis” the US and Israeli leaderships (it has never been said that they call it “Zionist”), and all those whom they do not identify as “progressive” or “left”.

[16] There is a prevarication in here: the insistence with which, after the “massacre of Nasiriya”, was spread the image of a flag of the Italian Social Republic hanging in the room of one of the victims, was aiming to address in ‘manageable’ patterns the criticism of the Italian participation in the wars of others.

[17] A good antidote to the similar reductionist views seems to be the book by R.W. Bulliet, La civiltà islamico-cristiana{The Islamic-Christian civilization}, (it. trans.) Laterza, Roma-Bari, 2005. And then, if we wanted also to recollect the Romanness… It is clear that those who speak of “Judeo-Christian roots” aim to exclude Islam from the European imaginary identity: in a nutshell, insistence on “Judeo-Christianity” is used to keep Islam out, thus to be considered “alien”. But this is still only a contingent aspect, linked to the “war on terror (Islam)”. A second aspect is rather substantial, and invests the sense that its proponents want to give to a united Europe that should be considered as a kind of the United States of Europe: the idolatry of the “shield of David” (commonly called “Star of David”), recently defined by Romano Prodi as “one of the symbols of that culture and faith that are the oldest root of the European identity”, and it is a reminder to every EU citizen that they can be EU citizens only if we recognize themselves to be in the “Holocaust religion”, as the “shield of David” is the first symbol chosen by the Zionists, later adopted by the Nazis to discriminate the Jewish populations subdued to them, and finally had become the symbol of the flag of the State of Israel: according to this view, the new ‘European consciousness’, on which to base the’ ‘identity’, would arise to Auschwitz.

[18] But in Iraq, yes, of course after the hated “dictator” – who guaranteed the “coexistence between Muslims and Christians” – has been eliminated!

[19] On this specific category read L. Cupertino, Spaghetticons. La deriva neoconservatrice della destra cattolica italiana {Spaghetticons. The neo-conservative drift of the Italian Catholic right wing}, Il Cerchio, Rimini 2008.

[20] To understand everything it is neccessary to read the materials in this site: http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/

[21] See the file no. 59 of the magazine “Sodalitium ‘, entitled Joseph Ratzinger … The Rhine flows into Tiber.

[22]Aspetti in ombra della legge sociale dell’Islàm {Features in the shadow of the social law of Islam}- review of the eponymous book by G. Cantoni, «La Porta d’Oriente»{“The Gateway to the East”}, n. 5, August 2001, pp. 133-138.

[23] And also every “moderate Muslim”: every couple of years they try to pass in Egypt, the “Memory Day “, while some “good Muslims, in Italy, try to become notable for their initiatives on “The righteous of Islam “: that will end up with the “best Muslims” would be those who “saved the Jews (from the Holocaust)”! The limit is then reached by the so-called “Charter of values” of the Min. of the Interior that, in the intention of those who proposed it (Giuliano Amato), Muslims are expected to sign an extra of ‘loyalty’ with respect to the acceptance of the Constitution of the Republic. The “Charter of values” is not “neutral”, but implies a recognition by the Muslims of the ”Holocaust” as a “shared value” and the factual renunciation to support the causes felt by them like very close, since the resistances (Palestinian, Iraqi, Lebanese etc.) are implicitly considered “terrorism”.

See Carta dei Valori, della Cittadinnza e dell’Integrazione: {Values Charter, of the Citizenship and Integration}: http://www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/sezioni/sala_stampa/notizie/immigrazione/2007_04_23_app_Carta_dei_Valori.html.

[24] See F. Schuon,Unità trascendente delle religioni {Transcendent Unity of Religions}, (It. trans.) Edizioni Mediterranee, Roma 1997.

[25] Whether through Catholics of the “neo-fascist” sphere (see the clause f)), there weave the relationships with those Christian militant circles most ardent anti-Islamic and ‘small-nationalists’ (v. The Lebanese Phalange). A worthy exception among the “conservative” Catholic intellectuals is represented by Maurizio Blondet, who on the site “Effedieffe.com” has written pages on Islam animated by sincere admiration and respect. See, among others, Un ringraziare islamico {An Islamic Gratitude}, October 20 2007 (http://www.effedieffe.com/index.php?option=com_jcs&view=jcs&layout=form&Itemid=145&aid=1882).

[26] Again I refer to my «Stato d’Israele» o «Entità Sionista»?{“State of Israel” or “Zionist Entity” ?}, “Eurasia” 3/2006, pp. 185-195.

[27] P. Guzzanti, Oh Israel, “Essereliberi.it,” July 16, 2006 (http://www.essereliberi.it/modello_articolo.php?id_artic=634&recordinizio=0).

[28] Daniel Pipes is a professional in this line of propaganda, he is “an ubiquitous expert of the television studies and regular commentator of the largest newspapers; Daniel Pipes has become a world theoretician of Islamophobia. Son of Richard Pipes, the Sovietologist who had given a second wind to the arms race during the government of Ford, and spiritual son of Robert Strausz Hupé, the visionary of the new world order, Daniel Pipes directs an infinity of strategic institutes. This is to Him that owe their existence such voguish concepts as those of the “new anti-Semitism”, “militant Islam” and “conspiracionism“. He, who is a supporter of the total elimination of the Palestinians, was appointed by George Bush as director of the US Institute for Peace “(introduction to Daniel Pipes, esparto dell’odio{Daniel Pipes, the expert of hate}: trad. It.,” Comedonchisciotte.org “, August 21 2005 (http://www.comedonchisciotte.org/site/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1307)).

[29] In these circles weighs considerably the presence of “Jews for peace groups”, who, once accepted and validated, set the stakes of the “politically correct” in the pro-Palestinian camp, forcing leaders to a continuous ‘examination of conscience’.

[30] Put this way, the question, however, appears to be distorted, since an association of European countries with Turkey (not to mention Russia) opens the door to a subject of neither “European” nor “Asian” character, but the Eurasian. [on this issue, read this interview: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/turchia-nell%E2%80%99unione-europea-%E2%80%9Csi%E2%80%9D-o-%E2%80%9Cno%E2%80%9D/3553/].

[31] It is the same model from which draws sap the misunderstanding in which in Palestine would live “two nations”, one of which, the “Israeli” one (authentic ‘precipitate’ of disparate components that have in common only the ‘passion for Zion ‘), to create their own “identity” must stand in a constant state of psychological siege towards their neighbors. See Galoppini E., On the Israeli terrorism (review), “Eurasia” 1/2005, pp. 219-228 (reproduced here: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/ital/EGrecen.html).

[32] See E. Galoppini, Il Fascismo e l’Islàm {Fascism and Islam}, Ed. All’Insegna del Veltro, Parma 2001 (with pref. by F. Cardini) and the various studies of Stefano Fabei (http: //www.stefanofabei. it) on the subject, of particular note is Mussolini e la resistenza palestinese {Mussolini and the Palestinian resistance}, Mursia, Milan 2005.

[33] On Magdi Allam: who on the eve of the Easter 2008 received a spectacular christening showed on TV worldwide by none other than Pope [and who later was gradually uninterested in anti-Islamic polemic] – read the materials incurred in the dossier: http : //www.kelebekler.com/occ/magdino.htm. On his conversion to Christianity: Meno male, è solo Magdi Allam {Thank goodness! it’s just Magdi Allam}, M. Blondet, “Effedieffe.com”, March 23, 2008(http://www.comedonchisciotte.org/site/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=9510&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=).

As for the campaigns conducted within universities to drive away the teachers who are not adequately aligned, consider the existence of Campus Watch, one of the many creations of Daniel Pipes (http://www.campus-watch.org). To a level less specific, we note the work of manic spying carried out by “correct information” (http://www.informazionecorretta.com/), which sifts and exposes to the public ridicule any position deemed “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Zionist” (that for them are the same).

[34] Besides, the Arabic term ‘awlama, usually rendered as “globalization”, having the same root as ‘âlam (“world”) should be rendered as “internationalization” (or, at least, “globalism”).

[35] To give some examples, it concerns those Muslims who side unconditionally with the Bosnians, Kosovars of the KLA (demonizing the Serbs), with Chechen Basayev (demonizing the Russians: curiously Serbs and Russians are also disliked by the West), for the simple fact that they are Muslims, without posing any doubt of geopolitical character to the interests served by the causes they incur, that much they are blinded by sectarianism and partisanship. The ultimate blindness (and geopolitical ignorance) is then achieved when Muslims are not willing to admit that the Western propaganda, even if proposing “oppressed people” – this time from China -, does not hesitate to use the Muslims such as the Uighurs of Xinjiang province (or Chinese Turkestan): to lift the “problem” there contribute associations of Uighurs based in the United States, such as the Association of Uighurs in America (UAA) and the Uighur Human Rights Project.

[36] See. E. Galoppini, Note sulla politica islamica degli atlantici {Notes on Islamic politics of the Atlantic}, “Eurasia”, 3/2005, pp. 223-226. It is Significant, revised after all what happened with “Clean Hands”, is an intervention of the then Prime Minister, Bettino Craxi, that on November 6 1985, in the Council, was claiming the legitimacy of the armed struggle for national liberation conducted by the Palestinians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sDmx01ZNfA.

[37] Here there is no time to deepen this aspect, but it is advisable to read meanwhile P. Rumi, L’Islàm nell’istante «unipolare»{Islam in the “unipolar” instant}, “Eurasia-rivista.org”, 2 August 2005 (http: / /www.eurasia-rivista.org/cogit_content/articoli/EEkkAAZlEEGytNtwrs.shtml).

[38] Who, as especially comprehensible after reading the article by P. Rumi, manipulate also the Muslims mentioned in clause g) of the preceding paragraph.