, , ,

There are some conspiracy theorists who claim the sad deaths of Robin Williams and Lauren Bacall were ‘black operations’ designed to distract media attention away from events in Ferguson, Missouri. While obviously this is stultifying nonsense, there are very valid questions to be raised regarding what the media choose to treat as news, and how they choose to treat it.

I, for one, am growing heartily sick of media refusal to provide a context for both the current situation in Iraq, and so-called Islamist terrorism in general. What I am about to say has been said before, and not just by myself, but in numerous                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     far more-learned and densely-foot-noted books. Yet the information has been largely ignored by a media curiously reluctant to provide viewers or listeners with any context for events, which thus seem to exist in a disconnected void, much like a television series where each episode is a complete story, not reliant upon any knowledge of previous episodes.

With Iraq this entails no mention of the American invasion of 2003 – covered first-hand in my book A War Against Truth – which violated international law, and was predicted by many to result in the current factional chaos. As I predicted here some weeks ago, the threat to U.S. oil interests would oblige America to respond with lethal force. The situation will further deteriorate, and I shall not be surprised to see U.S. boots on the ground soon enough – particularly since they are already on the ground in remote desert bases, stationed there purely to protect oil concerns. The reader ought to remember that America has never closed a base – they still exist in Japan, Italy, Germany, and other defeated victims of World War II; as well as in the numerous objectives of American imperialism, from Indo-China to the Philippines, the Caribbean, and Central America. Although such bases are occasionally mentioned in connection with U.S. operations requiring their use – Weisbaden, for example – I have never heard any media pundit question their existence seventy years, in some cases, after the war which justified their initial construction.

This, however, is not my point here – although it does remain a question demanding both to be asked and answered. My point here is going to be stark, unembellished, and profoundly offensive to some – and those ‘some’ are profoundly offensive to me. I am tempted to state the case in point form as an aid to comprehension, and to add emphasis that this is fact, not opinion:

01: Wahhabite Islam is responsible for all Islamist Terrorism. It is the sole form of Islam officially sanctioned by Saudi Arabia.

02: Wahhab, the founder, was an 18th century Muslim with delusions of grandeur that appealed to Ibn Sa’ud, who was then attempting, through a prodigious campaign of inter-tribal marriages, to make himself ruler of Arabia – then an ill-defined area of nomadic peoples. Wahhab – whose own parents regarded him as insane – saw himself as greater than the Prophet Mohammed, aspiring to be Caliph of a vast Islamic empire. This meshed in nicely with Ibn Sa’ud’s own plans, giving them a religious sanction. Thus, a partnership was formed between priest and prince – not unlike that advocated by ancient Hebrew texts – dividing control of the inchoate Saudi Arabia between an hereditary monarchy and an hereditary priesthood, which exist to this day, splitting the fabulous oil wealth – undreamt of in the 18th century – between Wahhabite priests and Saudi royalty.

03: Many of Wahhab’s heretical interpretations of Islam were suited to Ibn Sa’ud’s specific needs: for example, Islam forbids Muslims from attacking other Muslims. Ibn Sa’ud badly wanted to raid the rich merchant caravans travelling west from Persia, yet, Iranians being Muslim, he could not do. Thus Wahhab proclaimed the Shia form of Islam practiced in Persia to be un-Islamic, thereby justifying Ibn Sa’ud’s raids, which increased pre-oil wealth handsomely.

04: In order to increase the power of his own sect, excluding other Islamic influences, Wahhab also declared Sufis, and other branches of more mystical forms of Islam, to be un-Islamic. He also banned music and dancing.

05: Wahhab effectively reduced his form of Islam to something approaching a prison code, which merely existed to be obeyed.

06: When Ibn Sa’ud conquered the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, putting himself in charge of the lucrative Haj pilgrimage, which all Muslims able to do so are encouraged to perform at least once, he was faced with a large group of Egyptian pilgrims singing their traditional Haj songs. On the advice of Wahhab – for whom music was anathema – all these Egyptians pilgrims were slaughtered.

07: Wahhab, to further his own ambitions of becoming global Caliph, began emphasising passages in the Koran urging Jihad against infidels as a divine injunction. Some scholars even suggest that Wahhab himself embellished such passages to make them sound more like a physical, rather than a spiritual war.

08: The Koran can only be read in Arabic, since more than an third of it is impossibly difficult to comprehend, due to the antiquity of the language. All translations are thus interpretations, and Wahhabi translations are among the most prevalent, and the most suspect, in their presentation of Jihad as a literal war, rather than the inner, spiritual struggle it is – much like the war referred to in the Bhagavad Gita.

09: It has been well known what the Saudi royalty spent their half of the sudden and unexpected torrent of oil dollars on; yet few seem aware of what the Wahhabi theocrats did with their share. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. From the 1970s on, Wahhabi money was poured into free schools, built all over the world, and not merely in nominally Islamic countries. Africa has been a major target. The form of Islam taught in these schools was the heretical doctrine of Wahhab, preaching a violent Jihad as one of its major tenets. This has not gone unnoticed – a friend of mine in Zambia tried to close down such schools – yet free education has proved hard to argue against, especially when it is accompanied by such perquisites as free loans for agricultural equipment, clothing, and so on.

10: Except in nations where school curricula are carefully monitored, the Wahhabi heresy is now being taught as Islam, encouraging, among many monstrosities, the glories of martyrdom in all its hideous forms. Furthermore, through a complex network of banking facilities, Wahhabi money is financing Jihadi movements everywhere, providing weapons and expertise.

11: Ask yourself why the only airplane allowed to fly on 9/11 carried members of the Saudi royal family out of the U.S.A. Then ask yourself if the C.I.A., with all its resources, is unaware of Wahhabi involvement in international terror.

12: Hardly any average citizen understands the Sunni-Shia schism in Islam – why is this not explained by the media? Is one person in a million aware of the Wahhabite heresy co-ruling Saudi Arabia, and dividing its wealth? How many ‘news junkies’ know that Wahhabism is solely responsible for the current fear of Islam as a threat to world peace? Why should this be?

One possible answer to such nagging questions is that the current situation suits someone with the power to keep it going for their own interests. By far the most barbaric and backward of wealthy world states, Saudi Arabia remains unscathed by tribulations afflicting much of the Arab world. They even have a secret yet widely acknowledged pact of mutual cooperation with Israel. Besides the Wahhabi menace, one would expect a little more pressure brought to bear on the Kingdom by western feminists. Yet the descendants of Ibn Sa’ud and Wahhab seem to dwell within a titanium time capsule, within which they are free to run a society on 12th century lines, as well as to sponsor and espouse movements and activities which are by far the most disturbing, lethal and disruptive in the world where dwell the rest of us. Harass your senators, congressmen, and members of parliament, I suggest. Ask these questions, and demand answers. No one more than I would be happier to learn that answers are available. I would post them here, without doubt. In the meantime, wait for U.S. efforts to safeguard the oil that most Iraqis still imagine is theirs; and, of course, do nothing for Syria – neediest of needy spots – because Syrians don’t have to imagine they own oil; they know they do not. It is up to us to make this planet a better place, and forcing the media to provide a little context for its discombobulated and hysterical content would be a good place to start.

With love, as always,

Paul William Roberts.