Etiology of Terrorism


I would like to start from the core of the issue: it is clear that the majority of terrorist attacks that have happened since the end of the 20th century identify themselves with the main, maybe even the only, movement: Islam. In fact, I've never heard of any Orthodox or Catholic attacks. Thus, the play begins, the curtain rises, but the actors are yet unknown. Who is the author, who is the director, producer, who helps behind the scenes, who is operating the sound, lighting, and special effects – are also unknown.

Let’s assume that Islam is the main carrier of terrorism in the world. But what kind of Islam is it? And who is really pulling the puppet’s strings, which are constantly moving before our eyes? I mean bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, ISIS, Daesh, Boko Haram...

To make it clear who is currently supporting these terrorist organizations, I would like you to read this passage from the New York Times on January 23rd, 2016:

When President Obama secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming Syria’s embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a willing partner to help pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the CIA has relied on for decades for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Since then, the CIA and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the rebel-training missions, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current and former administration officials said that the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the CIA takes the lead in training the rebels with AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles.

The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in unison. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks that underwrite American covert activities.

The joint arming and training program, which other Middle East nations contribute money towards, continues as America’s relations with Saudi Arabia — and the kingdom’s place in the region — are in flux. The old ties of cheap oil and geopolitics that have long bound the countries together have loosened as America’s dependence on foreign oil declines and the Obama administration tiptoes toward a diplomatic rapprochement with Iran.

And yet the alliance persists, kept afloat on a sea of Saudi money and the recognition of mutual self-interest. In addition to Saudi Arabia’s vast oil reserves and role as the spiritual anchor of the Sunni Muslim world, the long intelligence relationships help to explain why the United States has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses, its treatment of women, and its support for the extreme strain of Islam, Wahhabism, which has inspired many of the very terrorist groups the United States is fighting against. The Obama administration did not publicly condemn Saudi Arabia’s beheading of a dissident Shiite cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, who had challenged the royal family.

Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the CIA’s covert action campaign and their direct financial support has not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.

From the moment the CIA operation began, Saudi money supported it.

“They understand that they have to have us, and we understand that we have to have them,” said Mike Rogers, the former Republican congressman from Michigan who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when the CIA operation began. Mr. Rogers declined to discuss the details of the classified program.

American officials have not disclosed the amount of the Saudi contribution, which is by far the largest from another nation to the program to arm the rebels against President Bashar al-Assad’s military. But estimates have put the total cost of the arming and training effort at several billion dollars.

As it is modern history, let’s go back in time.

Historians know the role played by the British since the 18th century, and how they contributed to the rise to power of the Saudi dynasty, backing a union between it and the al-Wahhab family in order to provide a way to India, or more closer to us, but the same geo-strategic aim was chosen by Roosevelt in 1945, creating ties with the Wahhabi state.

We should remember the role of the British leadership in the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1920’s. And what is the Muslim Brotherhood, if it is not Islamic Freemasonry, intended to service or at least to support Anglo-Saxon interests in all countries where it exists. For special games on balance and coups, in which the Anglo-Saxons are great masters of, I offer you to be interested in the events that have happened in Turkey in the recent years, and where we can see the Masonic Kemalist state (even standing on the west’s side, but probably not anti-Russian enough) changing to the Islamic state with the Muslim Brotherhood at its head.

There are documents on these ties between Britain, America, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and of course, during the Arab Spring, these networks from Tunisia to Syria through Libya were used by American and British intelligence services.

In other words, despite the fact that Islam is really in the center of the “terrorist environment”, in my opinion, it is not its own carrier, not even its purpose, but it is simply an obedient and manipulated Anglo-Saxon godfathers’ tool, and that involves geopolitical, economic, military, religious, and cultural purposes, which has as the ultimate goal world domination of those who consider themselves as the only one who can control it.

But all these attacks, these “color revolutions”, the regimes overthrows are only the acute symptoms of other diseases, more difficult and more fortified in the world, which I call the Anglo-Saxon ideology.

If we do not understand where the roots of large confrontations are, brought by the Western worldview, we are like doctors who treat only the symptoms, not diagnosing the disease. What Dr. Putin is doing now in Syria, and we know why he has to do it, is mass chemotherapy so that the patient won’t die.

And we know that the metastasis of this disease may tomorrow appear somewhere else, in Macedonia or Montenegro, in the North Caucasus or Moldova, and in Transnistria or Ossetia.

Let's try to figure out how this Anglo-Saxon ideology appeared.

It is known that the nations have waged war for a long time, and that invasion and incursion or slaughter are human nature, and there is no nation in the world that cannot be reproached for this. Whether invading new territories or defending their own, people have waged wars since the beginning of time, and it can only be changed by changing human nature.

This general truth does not prevent us from considering the details of historical and geopolitical facts of the past, and observe that the majority of wars, coups, revolutions, and crises that have appeared around the world had an Anglo-Saxon source. Wars in Korea and Syria, even Vietnam, Iran, Angola, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine, and many others have stemmed from this source. The Anglo-Saxon ideology exists in reality, and we must then ask ourselves: what is the Anglo-Saxon ideology like, and where did it come off?

What is the Anglo-Saxon ideology and how was it created?

I think it is necessary to go back to the Elizabethan era of the English monarchy, at the turn of 16th – 17th centuries. This era is characterized by religious wars, caused by the Protestantism foundation, and, on the European stage, by the clashes between the French monarchy and the Habsburg dynasty. The population of England in the 1600’s was only 4 million people, while the French one was 20 million. This demographics’ weakness, compared with the continental powers, including France and the Habsburg Empire, and the extreme threat of invasion attempt of England by Spanish King Philip II’s invincible armada are probably the source of the policy that the British elite conduct now (i.e. policy from weak to strong); that means causing division and conflict among all potential enemies. Its only advantage is the Navy, and it would have to use it, by all possible means, including piracy and trade (Varangians proved that both are often linked).

In my opinion, the great British dream of power and global hegemony appeared after Francis Drake came back on September 26th, 1580, when part of the trophy that was stolen from the Spanish empire and left for Queen Elizabeth is known to equate to 50% of the annual budget of the kingdom. To make it clear how huge it is, imagine an oligarch coming back to Russia, having visited all exchanges in the world, and giving President Putin about $3 trillion for Holy Russia.

Something similar happened at the end of the 16th century with the last representative of the Tudor dynasty. Imagine what the feelings were of the English “gentlemen” towards this transformation of Francis Drake from a non-nobleman, like a man of the sea, into one of the richest men in England, and even ennobled by the Queen after he stole the treasures of the Spanish kingdom. After his exploits he must become an example to follow, and, especially, one of his multiple adherents should be reminded of Walter Raleigh, as I know he was the first person who comprehended Anglo-Saxon hegemony in the world. In fact, this gentleman (some kind of pirate and, some kind of adventurer, who was beheaded in the Tower of London), until his death, managed to write a work simply called “History of the World”, which states: “ Whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and, consequently, the world itself.”

It seems to me that this extraordinary pirate exploit caused this desire to achieve world domination due to the Navy and the capture of other people's wealth.

This desire passed from generation to generation for centuries in the Anglo-Saxon world (through two channels, often related to each other: the exoteric University channel and esoteric Masonry channel), and, in particular, Britain’s Mackinder's words highlight it: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.”

The most interesting fact is that these three people from three different eras all share a common dream of absolute domination over the world. This is the deep nature of the Anglo-Saxon ideology: a full hegemony in all world affairs, which means that they are, with the usual arrogance, described as global governance and the continuation of the Great Game, which Kipling, a freemason, described in the 19th century.

And this Great Game should be won by the majority of the great actors on the world stage; this small British nation, whose population in the 4th century was only 4 million people, has spread around the world the pseudopodia of Commonwealth and the Great America: what they call the “five eyes” (the UK, the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand).

In other worlds, the terrorism, matured by the Anglo-Saxons (large finances, mafia, secret services, and circle reflections) that the world faces, is a weapon for partial destabilization (the World Trade Center, Charlie Hebdo, Paris terrorist attacks on 13th November) created to shock people and get them to accept deep social transformation, which in a normal context they would not accept, or a weapon of complete destabilization (Libya, Syria), created to conduct political coups or the dissolution of a country into different structures. The same methods of “moderate” terrorism can be used, like the manipulation of the faint hearted (Anders Breivik), to punish any country who’s political orientation on world politics is “wrong”. It is clear that the terrorist attacks in recent years in Russia fall into this category.

While the matrix of the Anglo-Saxon ideology still exists, the world will face incessant conflict.

Free nations can oppose the Anglo-Saxon ideology and its fantasy about the world, but the world no longer has many free nations, and the western cancer has affected multiple regions of the world.

Russia is one of these free nations that are able to guide the world away from Anglo-Saxon hegemony.

The main prerequisite is that it must want to do it!

To make it want to do it, it is necessary for it to have a developed worldview and reject the word “ideology”, which can be a real alternative to the system that kills nations. This alternative (conservative, of course) has to express, develop, and offer prospects for the world, as well as separation and opposition to the Western world, which is enclosed in its own contradictions and harmful ideology.

Russia has to find within itself its own resources – it has them – to restructure itself using its own values, turn its back on all materialistic, Marxist, and liberal ideas, and put the omnipotence of money in the right place. Maybe it's time to close the window opened by Peter the Great? Russia is not too late.

Russia exists, and it is a fact, and it is very easy: it is the Mother Land, the matrix, and the land of all beginnings.

But to make this revolution happen (this time a beneficial one), it is necessary for Russia to get rid of the Western system and its exported viruses, called by some experts the “fifth column”.

Last year, coming to Moscow with friends, before going to Donbass, I was very surprised that there is a World Trade Center on the bank of the Moskva River! World Trade Center? For whom? For Russians or Wall Street traders?

And the Western system’s devilry is hidden sometimes in the smallest of details, including legal ones, for example the Constitution.

Take, for example, the 13th article of the Russian Constitution of 1993, whose first paragraph states that, “In the Russian Federation ideological diversity shall be recognized” (I'm not sure that the ideology of Navalny or Femen bring something positive to Russia), and the second one –  “no ideology may be established as a state or obligatory one” (part 1.2, Art. 13 of the Constitution).

In other words, Russia does not allow itself to have a worldview. When any nation does not allow itself to have worldview that would be its own, which means that it inevitably will follow the prevailing ideology. Now the dominant ideology is the omnipotence of money.

I strongly believe that Russia intends to play a crucial role in the coming years in order to bring balance back to the world. It is difficult to convey this idea, because the Russian soul is both introverted and modest, and it is not habitual to claim to be universal, at least in the French or Anglo-Saxon interpretation of universal.

Russia has proclaimed its truth to the world twice in its history. The first time was in the name of the Holy Alliance, when Alexander I tried to deflect the harmful ideas of the French Revolution. The second time was on the contrary, in the name of these same ideas that the Bolsheviks were spreading on Russian territory, together with the proletarian ideal. It can be understood as the resistance to bourgeois ideology and the omnipotence of money. Not everything in Marx’s ideology is harmful.

In addition to these short periods of Russian history, the Russian bear prefers to stay in its den and oversee their honey, sometimes hitting those who come too close.

But still, imagine with Philotheus the monk that Moscow is the third Rome since Constantinople collapse, that its mission is to ensure the Orthodoxy, i.e. literally the right doctrine: then Moscow can not be limited to the protection of the Orthodoxy only on its territory. Ivan III, due to his his marriage to Zoe Palaeologus, who was the niece of the last king of the eastern Roman Empire, made Russia a heiress of the double-headed eagle, a symbol of harmony, peace, and spiritual bonding. This powerful symbol, looking both to the West and the East, and drawn again on the Russian coat of arms, makes the heirs of Vladimir Monomakh extend their view beyond the borders.

The Russia of the 21st century, faced with Western ideology that has Anglo-Saxon roots, and is now defined by nihilism and the lack of any spiritual guidance, should offer the United Nations a new Holy Alliance, to re-kindle hope for a better world.

As the system’s ideology wants to make all nations disappear, all humanity turn into an ugly magma of persons, deprived of their roots and brains, Russia must proclaim its word in the name of all nations, not only BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Every Russian knows by heart the last sentence of the Communist Manifesto: “Workers of the world, unite!” The new slogan of Russia, to rid the world of their oppressors, would be: “Patriots of the world, unite!” That's what should have been a proud Russian claim, get rid of all the complexes to the West! Russia is able to bring the world much more than just oil and gas. From its inner values, from their love of freedom, from its countless martyrs who fell victim to fascism and bolshevism, it gains the right, and more so the duty, to stand up for the purpose of ridding the world of Anglo-Saxon liberalism, which is the last avatar of ideology of the past centuries.

The Idiot by Dostoevsky has this beautiful phrase: “Beauty will save the world.”

Dostoyevsky was right: beauty is benefactor that can save the world, contrasting the ugliness of society, opposing itself to the ugliness of society over which money reigns. Is Russia free to carry out today Prince Myshkin's dream, and to forge its future of a mighty country, opposing itself to Mammon's Kingdom?