Civilizational Aggression: Non-Western Revival And Leftist Rebranding
Ever since the dawn of recorded history, different civilizations and identities were regularly in conflict with one another, making this one of the most consistent, long-lasting, and unsavory elements of the human story. Be that as it is, human history is on the exciting verge of change, with the millenniums-old "Clash of Civilizations" template behind replaced by the multipolar Dialogue of Civilizations that's been spearhead by the Resistant and Defiant (R&D) states of Russia, China, and Iran, as well as through the BRICS geo-civilizational partnership.
At this unprecedented moment of history, however, a modified form of Civilizational Aggression is being frantically constructed by the unipolar elites as they desperately seek to sow the seeds of mutually suspicious identity discord between the emerging multipolar powers. In an ironic twist of fate, self-proclaimed "anti-imperialists" and assumedly well-intentioned individuals have been caught in the US' weaponized informational matrix just as a fly is caught in a spider's web. Whether willfully co-opted or inadvertently behaving as "useful idiots', some of these "resistance fighters" are now functioning as the leading advocates of non-Western civilizational aggression and the militant vanguard of the New Fascism.
The research begins by explaining what's meant by the dangers of Civilizational Aggression and the New Fascism, after which it transitions to describing the relevant tenets of Fifth Generational Warfare. Following that, it describes how the US and its allies' "Weapon Of Mass Migration" has catalyzed the non-Western revival and liberal rebranding of the aforementioned threats. The work's next topic of focus is Secular Wahhabism, one of the syntheses of Civilizational Aggression and New Fascism, and the potential that this ideological Frankenstein has in most effectively disrupting integrative pan-civilizational cooperation processes. Finally, the study concludes by elaborating on the methods in which the multipolar world can resist this new asymmetrically divisive tactic against it and the unique role that Russia naturally plays in doing so.
Old Threats Revisited
Civilizational Aggression and the New Fascism are often misunderstood owing to the prevalence of popular stereotypes about them, all of which serve the purpose of masquerading these threats so that they're more difficult to identity when rebranded and redeployed in a slightly modified and unconventional manner. This results in many people even denying their existence when these unexpected forms are unleashed, dangerously allowing for the implicit facilitation of these destructive processes and cunningly tricking a mass of people who would otherwise be genuinely opposed to them into becoming active supporters of their new manifestations.
To speak more specifically, the global discourse is such that the general understanding holds that the West, particularly a culturally amorphous blob of "white" Europeans and their descendants regardless of class, has a monopoly on Civilizational Aggression, with advocates of this approach pointing to the well-documented Crusades and the era of standard and neo-colonialism. While these are certainly archetypical examples of Civilizational Aggression, they're by far not the only ones nor are they exclusive to the West. For example, the Turkish Civilization ruthlessly occupied the Balkans and forced many of its people to convert to Islam under the pane of torture and death, while the Arab Civilization hunted for black slaves in the African jungles and sold their captives on the global market.
All of these cases are equally reprehensible and none of them can be excused, but they demonstrate that Civilizational Aggression has been practiced by a multitude of actors in a variety of ways throughout millennia, thereby shattering the myth that it's only "white" Europeans and their descendants who have ever done anything abhorrent in their histories. Additionally, while the discussed instances are definitely regrettable, they are by no means the sole defining characteristics of any of these actors. Despite their aggressive track record against others outside their spheres, Western, Turkish, Arab, and other civilizations have a plethora of positive internal traits and have each made constructive contributions to greater humanity.
Therefore, given the fact that all civilizations have their fair share of both positive and negative historical aspects, labelling one or another as the sole practitioner of aggression is a categoric falsehood that's purposefully proclaimed in order to pursue self-interested political objectives. For example, it's common for proponents of this selectively cherry-picked historical understanding to correspondingly advocate the hypocritical and artificially constructed polemic of "civilizational guilt", whereby they state that the "aggressive" civilization is duty-bound to take certain domestic policy measures in order to cleanse itself of its historic sins. In the present-day conception, this takes the form of individuals agitating for European countries to accept an unlimited number of civilizationally dissimilar immigrants solely on the basis that this is the only way to make amends for colonialism, and it's an important point that the research will return to later on.
The stereotype about New Fascism is inaccurately simple, and it goes along the lines that this socio-political phenomenon can only arise from the extreme right wing. Granted, the historical experience proves that this is true in many respects, just as history documents that Western Civilization has engaged in aggressive activity, but left to on their own and without further elaboration, both of these presuppositions are only partially correct. Just as Civilizational Aggression is not solely limited to the West, so too is New Fascism not exclusively bounded to the right of the political spectrum nor capable of only sprouting up in Europe. If Fascism is stripped of the specific racial and nationalist lingo that accompanied its World War II-era manifestations and the economic associations are left aside (as they typically are when speaking about this topic nowadays), it can easily be summarized as the militant imposition of a distinctly defined set of self-believed "universalist" values, thus enabling objective observers to more clearly identify its practice in non-Western and non-right wing contexts all across the world.
Having revealed the wider foundational understanding of what Fascism truly is, it's possible to apply this label when discussing a multitude of cases outside of the World War II experience. The most profound contemporary example is the US' violent push in forcing non-Western countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya into accepting its conception of "liberal democracy" and "human rights", although these ideas mostly serve as window dressing for ex post facto 'justifying' the deep state's decision to advance its geopolitical objectives in these targeted regions. It's more theoretically relevant then to utilize the New Fascist label when describing Islamic extremists, be they non-state actors like Daesh or state ones such as Erdogan's Neo-Ottoman Turkey. Both of these examined actors sincerely desire to spread their universalist sense of "values" all across the world, including by aggressive means. In a much more geographically confined sense, the Ukrainian leadership and Hindu Nationalists each aspire to do something similar against Russians and Muslims respectively.
In the spoken-about examples, there's no clear indication that any of the Fascist actors have a left-wing and/or "liberal-progressive" element to them. The Ukrainian authorities are obviously right-wing, as are the Hindu Nationalists, however one would do well not to forget that former President Bill Clinton was a left-wing liberal-progressive, but that this did not prevent him from launching the "humanitarian" invasions of Somalia and Haiti or bombing the Serbs in Bosnia and Yugoslavia. Equipped with this insight, it's possible to link the Fascist imposition of universalist values to the leftist vision, despite Bill Clinton not practicing a dogmatically pure form of this ideology (a feat which no political leader has ever accomplished anyhow). It's important for the reader to keep in mind the relationship between self-identifying leftists and Fascism since the research will later explain how this is relevant to the recently created problem of Secular Wahhabism.
Fifth Generation Warfare
Unbeknownst to most observers, the US has already ushered the world into the phase of Fifth Generation Warfare, whereby hitherto "neutral" actors and processes such as protesters and immigration have been weaponized for geostrategic ends. This is respectively emblematic in the form of Color Revolutions and "Weapons of Mass Migration", the latter of which will be detailed in the following section. More pertinent at this moment is to describe the role that ideas play in Fifth Generation Warfare, since this component of study is directly related to Civilizational Aggression and the New Fascism.
All civilizations, ideologies, and advocacy movements have certain preexisting elements that predispose them to internal extremist manipulation and outside geopolitical exploitation, with the religion of Islam, leftist theoretical texts, and the immigrant rights network being the most relevant to the research at hand. Each of these is capable of being weaponized by internal and/or external actors and have already proven their susceptibility to having this occur. Daesh and the Muslim Brotherhood are symptomatic of the larger vulnerability that afflicts Islam, while Pol Pot is a genocidal example of how the leftist ideology could be used for evil purposes. Concerning the immigrant rights network, this cause has been co-opted via the US' "Cuban Adjustment Act" of 1966 (more popularly known as the "wet foot, dry foot" policy) to enhance the conduct of demographic-economic warfare against Havana, and supporters of illegal immigration in general are naively enabling the large-scale influx of cheap labor into their economy.
The above examples illustrate that the realm of ideas is no longer, nor ever has been, an untouched "safe zone" free from weaponized exploitation. Even the most stereotypically peaceful of ideas, Buddhism, has been abused as an instrument of destabilization against the Chinese and Myanmar governments, which in itself should give people pause to think about how other less near-unanimously perceived peaceful ideas can also be manipulated. Fifth Generation Warfare expertly utilizes this concept of weaponized ideas (particularly that of Islam, leftism, and immigrant advocacy) in order to advance Civilizational Aggression and the New Fascism, and this train of thought will be continued when the research discusses the newly conceived radical ideology of Secular Wahhabism and the threat that it poses to multipolarity.
The Immigrant Catalyst
Understanding The Basics:
No single event has done more to catalyze Civilizational Aggression and the New Fascism than the Immigrant Crisis, which itself is a strategically engineered byproduct of the US' neo-imperialist wars on the Mideast-North Africa (MENA) region. To concisely summarize what's been happening, the US sought to simultaneously enhance its unipolar position in MENA through the "Arab Spring" theater-wide Color Revolutions. When some of them predictably turned into bloody Hybrid Wars, such as what had happened in Libya and Syria, US intelligence agencies jumped into action by capitalizing off of the humanitarian crisis and transforming it into a Fifth Generational Warfare weapon for use against the EU.
The US' main motivation in doing so was to geo-democraphically engineer Europe in such a way as to provoke a perpetual state of Hobbesian tension between the citizenry, the new arrivals, and the government which could then be manipulated on command into a Color Revolution against whichever targeted government the US chooses. In the context of the New Cold War, the US does not want to lose its hegemonic position over the EU, and it will do anything it can in order to prevent key European states such as Germany from pragmatically cooperating with Russia and China. This is especially true in the sphere of multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects such as Turkish/Balkan Stream, Nord Stream II, and the Balkan Silk Road, as the fulfillment of any of these proposals would tangibly decrease the US' influence over the continent and lead to a surge of multipolar sentiment in Europe.
In response to Russia and China's proposed engagement with the EU, the US made an epic power move in having its intelligence agency and NGO networks cooperate with Turkey in coordinating the disbursement of over one million civilizationally dissimilar immigrants to Europe. It could easily be forecasted well in advance by even the most novice of European observers that the EU's socio-political, economic, and historic situation, particularly in the context of the ongoing Great Recession, predisposed it to being extraordinarily destabilized by the influx of so many immigrants, irregardless of whatever their civilizational identities may be but of course made even more acute by the fact that most of them are Arab Muslims.
There's nothing inherently destabilizing or aggressive in somebody being an Arab Muslim, but it's just that the EU's particular circumstances make the native population extremely sensitive to an uncontrollable inflow of this civilizational group. Likewise, India has a similar attitude towards Muslims (whether of Arab, South Asian, or any other geographical origin), and New Delhi even took its sentiments to the radical extreme by refusing to sign the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees that would have legally obligated it to care for the Muslim refugees that fled after the violent 1947 partition and possibly even entitle them with the right to permanently return. Another example of a civilization that's structurally sensitive to the large-scale and uncontrollable influx of another are the Native American populations of the Western Hemisphere on the eve of trans-Atlantic colonialism. Whether it was the tribes of the Great Plains, the Aztecs, or the Incas, among others, no civilization in what would later be called North and South America was prepared to deal with the Europeans, and this is due to their historical circumstances prior to engagement (decentralized and disparate tribes, inferior weaponry, belief that white men on horses were gods, etc.).
In each of these examples, nothing justifies or excuses unprovoked hostile reactions by the native populations to the incoming civilizationally dissimilar foreigners, and it's not the author's intent to imply that violence and/or discrimination against anybody, let alone a person of a separate identity to oneself, is ever acceptable except in self-defense. Rather, the purpose of elaborating on these sorts of civilizational sensitivities is to provide insight into the psychological and structural preconditions of the given subjects and indicate that negative reactions (whether justified or not) are predictable whenever there are large-scale, prolonged, and uncontrollable interactions between dissimilar civilizations at the civil society level. When a given actor predicts how their counterparts will behave under these circumstances and takes concrete steps to advance the on-the-ground scenarios that they forecasted, the previously mentioned process becomes the sort of "Weapon of Mass Migration" that Kelly M. Greenhill exposed in her 2010 research of the same name, in which she conclusively proved that there are at least 56 instances of states intentionally benefiting from generating, provoking, and exploiting massive waves of human migrations.
Not A Surprise:
It's important for the reader to be aware that the present chaos in Europe wasn't unpredictable, and that it was predicted to an extent by credible and well-respected authoritative voices such as Presidents Putin and Assad, neither of which are "xenophobes", "racists", or "fascists".
In 2012, then-Prime Minister Putin, in an immigration manifesto penned during his pre-election campaign for the Presidency, commented on the "colossal migration flows" that he called the "great migration", expressing his regret at how woefully unprepared Western society has been for structurally responding to this and predicting some of the forthcoming challenges that would later arise:
"The melting pot of assimilation is highly volatile – pushed to its limits by the ever-increasing migration flow. In politics this has found reflection in a “multiculturalism” which denies integration through assimilation. Although it makes the “minorities right to be distinct” absolute, it does little to balance this with public, behavioural or cultural commitments to the population and society as a whole. Closed ethnic-religious communities that form in many countries refuse not only to assimilate but even to adapt. There are neighbourhoods and whole towns where generations of new arrivals live on benefits and do not speak the language of the country in which they live. The growth of xenophobia among the population and harsh attempts to protect their interests, jobs and social benefits from “immigrant rivals” is the response seen in this behavioural model. People, shocked by what they perceive as aggressive pressure on their traditions or way of life, feel a genuine fear of losing their national identity.
Thoroughly respectable European politicians have started to talk openly about the failure of the “multicultural project”. They exploit the “ethnic card” to stay in office, adding their voices to the chorus of those they used to consider marginal or and radicals. Extreme forces, in turn, are rapidly gaining in number, laying serious claims to power. In fact, there is talk of forced assimilation – against the backdrop of “shutting down” and sharply tightening migration rules. People from different cultures are faced with a choice: either “blend in with the majority” or remain an ethnic minority that is isolated, despite being provided with all kinds of rights and safeguards. But in effect they find themselves divorced from promising career opportunities. I will say frankly – an individual who finds themselves in this environment is unlikely to be loyal to his or her country."
After the War on Syria was already in full swing, President Assad warned in a June 2013 interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine that:
"If the Europeans supply weapons, Europe’s backyard would become a terrorist haven, and Europe would pay a price for this. Terrorism would mean chaos here. Chaos would lead to poverty, and poverty would mean that Europe would lose an important market. The second effect would be the direct export of terrorism to Europe. Terrorists seasoned in battle and armed with extremist ideology would return."
Nearly two years later in a speech commemorating the 70th anniversary of Russia’s victory in World War II and the defeat of the Fascists, President Putin warned everybody that:
“Hitler's reckless adventure became a tough lesson for the entire world community. At that time, in the 1930s, the enlightened Europe failed to see the deadly threat in the Nazi ideology. Today, seventy years later, the history calls again to our wisdom and vigilance. We must not forget that the ideas of racial supremacy and exclusiveness had provoked the bloodiest war ever.”
Later on in December 2015, President Assad directly warned that terrorists were infiltrating Europe under the guise of being "refugees" and addressed some of the integrative challenges that genuine refugees would have when they finally arrived in the EU:
"Question 18: What should Europe do now? Like should Europeans fear those people or help them?
President Assad: That depends. First of all, big or large part of them are not Syrians. About the Syrians it is a mixture, the majority let us say are good Syrians, the patriotic, the natural people, but of course you have infiltration of terrorists among them. That is true, how much and how many? We cannot tell, it is difficult to tell, and this is reality, and I think that you have some evidence on the internet, photos, videos that prove that some persons who have been killing people here and beheading sometimes left to Europe as peaceful citizens.
Reporter: But Generally speaking, help or fear?
President Assad: That depends on how Europe should deal with them, because you are talking not only about terrorism, you are talking about culture, even before the crisis, before this flood of refugees going to your country, the problem in Europe is how to integrate those cultures in your society? And I think Europe has failed, whether it is related to Europe from one aspect to the way they deal with the situation or because the Wahhabi institutions spend their money on screwing the interpretation of the Muslims, I am talking about the Muslims in Europe, and created more problems and extremism in your countries. Actually this region used to export sometimes some extremism to Europe. In our crisis, Europe is exporting extremism to us. So, it depends on how you are going to deal with it and I do not think it is going to be easy to make integration."
Continuing along the lines of the social and security problems that have arisen as a result of the Immigrant Crisis, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev had this to say at the Munich Security Conference in February 2016:
"Human capital is degenerating in the countries the refugees are leaving. And these countries’ development prospects have taken a downward turn. The ongoing migration crisis is rapidly acquiring the features of a humanitarian catastrophe, at least in some parts of Europe. Social problems are growing too, along with mutual intolerance and xenophobia. Not to mention the fact that hundreds and thousands of extremists enter Europe under the guise of being refugees. Other migrants are people of an absolutely different culture who only want to receive monetary benefits without doing anything to earn them. This poses a very real danger to the common economic space. The next targets will be the cultural space and even the European identity. We watch with regret how invaluable mechanisms, which Russia also needs, are being destroyed. I am referring to the actual collapse of the Schengen zone."
Prompted by a journalist to comment on the Immigration Crisis while holding a news conference during Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's visit to Moscow later that month, Putin remarked that:
"I think that our (Russia and Hungary's) views do largely coincide. But the refugee issue is the EU’s internal affair. We do not interfere in such matters. We know that discussion on this issue is taking place inside the European Union. Our people has sympathy for the position taken by the Hungarian government and Prime Minister, the desire to defend European identity and Hungary’s national identity."
Displaying just how serious the Russian President takes the security threats posed by refugee-disguised jihadists, Putin ordered the FSB at the end of the month to track all refugees entering and transiting through the country, stating at an organizational meeting that:
"It is important now to effectively seal off Russia’s territory to these terrorists trying to enter from the Middle East or other regions, and act swiftly to identify and neutralise those who are involved in terrorist activities abroad...We should tighten monitoring of the refugee flows coming into Russia or transiting onwards to European countries. In this respect, I want to add that this refugee crisis began long before Russia began its antiterrorist operation in Syria. At the root of this refugee crisis is the destabilisation of entire regions of the world, especially the Middle East. We see full well today what is happening with some refugees, on the Macedonian border, for example. They are refugees from Afghanistan. What have Russia’s operations in Syria got to do with them?"
Considering all of the above-documented statements by the Russian and Syrian leaders, both of which are trusted and held in the highest of regards by sincere supporters of the multipolar world, it's fair to objectively declare that the preplanned and engineered Immigrant Crisis has resulted in severe social and security challenges for Europe. While this is undeniably the case, especially after having been confirmed by Putin, Assad, and Medvedev, there remains a loud and militant subsect nominally self-identifying with the multipolar movement which refuses to recognize the fact that the reality of the situation contradicts their deeply held ideological zealotry. As it would happen, this agitative group forms the core (whether willfully or unwittingly) of the New Fascism that's pressing for Civilizational Aggression and the unravelling of the multipolar successes that have been achieved thus far.
To be continued...