Islamic filmmakers Achernar and Noreagaa have put out on the Web a huge 50-part compilation called the Wakeup Project explaining Jihadism to the English-speaking world. While some of their claims are too abstruse to be testable, many aren't. And most of these claims are false.
Historical Falsehoods
The first such claim is that the Antichrist (in Arabic, Dajjal) has ruled, and is going to rule, the world through Western countries, with England ruling from 900AD to 1900AD; America from 1917 to 2000; then Israel for the next 23 years. Anyone with historical knowledge knows this to be false. England was a feudal backwater that, with the exception of its conquest of France under Henry V, barely ruled itself until Queen Elizabeth, who came into power in 16th century. Until then, the major powers in the world were China, which controlled half the world's GDP while Europe was in the Dark Ages; the Muslim lands around Baghdad; and the Mongol Empire, which controlled half the world's landmass and population for over a century. The Songhai and Mali empires of Africa, the Moghul Empire of India, the Moore Civilization of Northern Africa, the Muslim caliphates, and the Mesoamerican civilizations, all had accomplishments that exceeded those of Medieval England. These things are not mentioned much in Western history classes, as these were not proud times in white man's history. But those who study world history know this to be the case.
England was in fact the greatest power in the world for three centuries from 1600 to 1900; but even then it was not alone. Spain, France, and to a lesser extent Germany, Russia, United States, Ottoman Empire, Netherlands, Belgium, and Portugal, all controlled large parts of the world at the time. These three centuries could be called European centuries, but the previous seven hundred years were neither English nor European. To claim that England ruled the world from 900AD to 1900AD is absurd.
The claim that America ruled the world from 1917 to 2000 is more accurate, but that is not saying much. The 20th century has in fact been called American century; but once again that is not the full story. The two great powers of 20th century were United States and Soviet Union. Germany and Japan also aspired to be great powers, but they were defeated militarily; after which they became major economic, but not military or political, powers. The claim of the film is that Israel will rule the world for the next 23 years. That comes across as unlikely; but if a tiny nation like Israel, that is faced with the kind of hatred with which it is faced, can not only survive as a nation but exercise a major voice in world affairs, then that is a great accomplishment on the part of Israeli people and one for which they deserve respect.
In its invective against Zionism, the film shows a picture of a book called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This book is a well-known Russian forgery. There is no such thing as "the Elders of Zion" or their "protocols," and the practices that are described in this book have absolutely no relation to actual practices of any Jewish denomination. That these filmmakers would use such an obvious and well-known fraud shows them that they are conmen, and that they also think that their audience is stupid enough to fall for their con. Neither of these bode well for their treatment of their audience.
Another fraudulent claim is that the current Pope is a Nazi - bolstered by a picture of the Pope as a child with a swastika on his arm. Should I state the obvious: That the fact the Pope was a child in Germany at the time that Germany was Nazi says nothing about his current convictions or about who he presently is? The Nazi Germany was a totalitarian country, and the choice people had was either be Nazi or be dead. The only thing he can be accused of is being born in the wrong place at the wrong time. That he was Nazi, as a child, in a place where people had no other choice but to be Nazi, does not mean that he is a Nazi now, 65 years down the road.
Islamic Conspiracy Theories
A central claim of the film is that a monolithic Satanic elite has been running the world for centuries and is doing the same now. I ask this: What is the status of the relationships between an elite called the Texas Oil and an elite called the National Endowment for the Arts? For that matter, what was the status of the relationships between government elites and corporate elites - between Wall Street and Congressional Democrats - between CIA and American media - between Republican Party and American academia? What is the status of the relationships between Iranian students and Iranian Guardian Council - between Hindu Brahmins and Hindu Socialists - between Taliban and the United Arab Emirates commercial interests - between Tobacco Industry and the National Institutes of Health? At any time in the history of the world, there is any number of powerful groups and powerful individuals who have different and frequently competing or hostile beliefs, values and interests; as well as any number of ambitious or angry groups and individuals who seek to either become part of these groups, supplant them, destroy them, or exist alongside of them. The elites have different purposes and different aims, and the only thing that they have in common is that they got where they are by being effective at something. Beyond that, they are as different from one another as New York is from Kandahar.
Another claim is that the Hollywood stars are puppets - and not just anyone's puppets, but the puppets of powerful Satanic interests. There are two things that the filmmakers fail to understand about Hollywood. One is that it is a capitalist industry, and capitalist industries produce what sells. The movies about gangsters and drug dealers sell, and that's why they are on the market. For that matter, we also find on the market such religious films as Apostle, Fallen, Devil's Advocate, Passion and Apocalypto. For that matter, we also find on the market children's films such as Bambi, Beauty and the Beast, Transformers, Bratz and Cars. For that matter, we also find on the market Charlie Chaplin movies, Disney classics, and films such as Chinatown, Titanic, and Schindler's List. As any industry, Hollywood produces what sells; and what sells in market economy depends on the demand and what composes the demand.
They also fail to understand this: that Hollywood has many voices in it, and they too are different and have different agendas. So that when Madonna - who is in no way a puppet, who writes her own songs, who makes her own show, and who has always defied both convention and prediction to constantly re-invent herself, going from celebrating consumerism as "Material Girl" in 1980s to rejecting 1980s consumerism and everything that it was about in her 1999 mystical album ("You're so concerned with how much you get, you waste your time with hate and regret, you're frozen when your heart's not open") - metamorphs herself into a dog in her video, or appears as an occult priestess at a concert, what is presented is not the values of Hollywood, but the values of Madonna. The values of Madonna differ from the values of Alec Baldwin, whose values differ from the values of Angelina Jolie, whose values differ from those of Eminem, whose values differ from those of Elton John, whose values differ from the values of Britney Spears, whose values differ from those of Mel Gibson, whose values differ from those of Spike Lee or Francis Ford Coppolla or Steven Spielberg. This is an inevitable result of the fact that it is an entity that is not homogeneous, but has many people in it who believe different things.
The film is right to state that much great art gets lost in Hollywood, and that there is not presently music being produced in Hollywood that compares with the work of Bob Marley. This is likewise due to market. As I've found out from a magnificent rock band called Persephone's Bees, the Hollywood music industry works in genres, and music that is truly creative is not easy to pigeonhole. For that reason there is such a thing as alternative music market and independent ("indie") music market, and some of the work that is found in these markets is indeed great art.
Showing the murder of Malcolm X, the filmmakers state, "This is what happens to truth in the world." It bears stating that the exact same thing happened to American liberal leaders John and Robert Kennedy; to American atheist leader Madalyn Murray O'Hair; to civil rights and liberation leaders Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Patrice Lumumba; to Yitzhak Rabin, Anwar Sedat and Benazir Bhutto. Of these, only the last two were Muslim; and both were moderate Muslims who were murdered by Muslim militants. Malcolm X, as an assassinated leader, was in this regard one out of many, and in disagreement with most on just about everything that counts.
The film continues to portray Malcolm X as "one of the most powerful and most honest leaders of all time." This demonstrates just what the filmmakers define as honest and powerful. As Martin Luther King said, there is nothing more dangerous than honest ignorance and sincere stupidity. As far as great historic leaders go, Malcolm X is not even on the list. He does not begin to compare to Jefferson, Washington, Churchill, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Simon Bolivar, Kwame Nkruma, or even Lenin and Mao. Martin Luther King was the real "powerful honest" American civil rights leader whose nonviolent resistance gave black people the moral authority that was needed to change the American laws and society in their favor. Malcolm X, on the other hand, wanted violent struggle against the white man. That the filmmakers would identify blind, stupid, self-defeating violence with honesty and power says more about their character and their values than it does about anything else.
It was in fact this - blind, stupid, self-defeating violence - that became the worst blight of American black communities in the decades that followed. Not only did this practice result in rape, pillage and murder of millions of black Americans by other black Americans and the black neighborhoods becoming blighted to the point that no business or educational institution would go there, but it severely undermined the moral authority that American black people had gained through the nonviolent civil rights struggle. The black neighborhoods turning into a gangster's paradise not only ruined life for black people, but also formed much of the basis for latter-day racism on the part of people inside and outside America. This ruinous legacy, unfortunately, has much to do with advocates of violence, both against the white man and in itself.
Another claim in the film is that the Freemasons are a satanic cult, and that America as the world's first Masonic country has been using covert tactics, from magic to psychological manipulation, to turn people toward the Masonic way of thinking in order to control the world. This claim is wed with the claim that Zionism is also Satanic and allied with Freemasonry. This reminds me of the "Kike-Masonic Conspiracy" nonsense that the hooligan types in Russia were shouting about. Covert persuasion, and different forms of mystical practices, have been used through all of history, by all kinds of entities. If the Freemasons are using mysticism, they are in that one group among myriads. As for use of psychology, it is standard marketing and political fare and has been so for decades all over the world.
A large part of the film goes on to relate different structures around the world to have been created for the sake of harvesting energy for purposes good or ill. It then claims that octagones and domes are good; that obelisks such as Washington Monument and pyramids such as the decorations on U.S. Dollar are evil; and that the street plan of Washington, DC shows an inverted pentagram - the symbol of Lucifer. The claim is that all these structures have been created to serve Satan. I am reminded of a poetry reading in DC that I attended. Someone started the reading by referring to Washington Monument as "a giant while penis symbolizing the white man screwing the world." I responded with, "As one of the few white people here, I would like to make clear that the penis on the Washington Mall is not mine." Octagons, domes good? Obelisks, pyramids evil? What about structures that are not found either in Islamic or Western architecture? What about pagodas, stupas, monasteries and homes carved into mountains, Japanese gardens, Golden Temple of Armitsar, Kremlin, the Forbidden City of Bejing, Boroboddur, the structures of Machu Picchu? To claim such things without proof is irresponsible propaganda, which most of the movie shows itself to be.
The film shows the outside and the inside of a major new shopping center in Dubai and claims its Egyptian-style decorations to be an attempt to resurrect the religion of ancient Egypt. More likely, it is simply a tourist draw. Since many of the people who go to Dubai to do shopping there are from the West, it is good business sense that they get a taste there of ancient Egypt. And if anyone who was affiliated with the project actually had it in mind to recreate some achievements of Egyptian civilization, then that may be called conscience. Egypt was a major civilization before it became Muslim; and if some people in Middle East are interested in recreating some of Egypt's achievements, then that is to their credit.
There is a claim in the movie that since the construction of Burj Dubai - by far the world's tallest building - the city of Dubai has been covered in mist, in which it has not been covered previously. The movie claims that no meteorologist has explained this, but that it is explained metaphysically as Burj Dubai being Satanic. Apparently the meteorologists asked have not been particularly competent. The building is so tall, that its tallest portions reach much colder air that is found at its heights close to a kilometer above the ground. The cold then goes down the building to cool the air at the bottom of the building, reducing its ability to carry water and resulting in humidity settling down as mist.
No comments:
Post a Comment