INTRODUCTION

There is a world crisis taking place in our time. It is not what the hegemonic power elite have named ‘terrorism’, although that dreadful activity is a symptom of it. That, properly speaking, must be identified as nihilism. Nihilism is the condition of that despair borne out of the conviction not only that things could not be worse, but tragically, that they can never get better. It cannot be Islamic, although perpetrated by Muslims, or more correctly, by Muslims who have abandoned the Deen so that they sacrifice their future (their sons and daughters) in a futile protest. They are like sailors who throw themselves to drown in the ocean storm, leaving the ship unmanned although it is still afloat.

No. The crisis of our time is a more profound matter whose causes must be traced to that greatest lie, the ghastly doctrine of atheist ‘humanism’ which claims that men can determine their social destiny by human willpower and structured legalism. It is that the fundamentals of what is called ‘democracy’ are fatally flawed and pre-determined to produce the opposite of what they claim. In other words, ‘liberty’ is doomed to create slavery, ‘fraternity’ is doomed to forge enmity, and ‘equality’ is doomed to create a financial oligarchic elite. It is not an accident that the man who created the slogan ‘Liberty! Fraternity! Equality!’ was guillotined by the Revolution which championed his slogan.

Today no political discourse is permitted. Indeed, it is punished. Democracy-human-rights-‘tolérance’ is imposed by mass murder, torture and civic persecution. To oppose this system is to be declared an enemy.

The present world-system is founded on a prior split between civic governance and financial power.

Civic power (government) is allotted an annual budget for social services and also armament, which second sum is ‘returned’ to the financial system. Currencies, alongside commodity-wealth, remain strictly under the control of the financial power.

What is in progress has been an unpredicted and unperceived transfer from the political entity to the financial entity. The doctrine of state power has been denuded of its financial core. If you like, the peas of wealth have been removed and the shell of government has been cast aside.

In this can be seen the final, and unpredicated, end to the fundamental programme of the ‘Enlightenment’—that men can will their structured societal destiny. Thus we are present at the last stage of the French Revolution / Terror model. Only the power has passed from the Assembly to the Bank.

This means we must recognise the Banking hegemony’s rule as that of a Revolutionary Elite (in the interest of ALL the people) against the ‘counter-revolutionary’ forces of fitra (aristocracy, in the past) and personal rule (monarchy and Khalifate).

It follows that now the Terror, historically, is not that either of the Muslim nihilists (Wahhabis) or the anti-globalist and anti-capitalist masses, but rather that of the elite military programmes of the Bankers, disrupting social life, massacring innocents, and torturing and executing prisoners. The brilliant tactic of the (Banker’s) Revolution has been to transfer the term ‘terror’ to the counter-revolutionary insurgents.

It is not accidental that the celebrations for the bi-centenary of the French Revolution in 1989 was almost entirely financed by Banks, a sum of millions squandered to celebrate ‘their’ Revolution.

Terror is a phase of the Revolution against personal rule, real-wealth coin, and the guardianship of land, commodities, and wealth by the Ruler for the people and which itself opposes the ever-surging rule of money-power.

Napoleon said it: ‘The only institution ever devised by men for mastering the Money-power in the State, is Monarchy.’

Terror requires a ‘democratic’ government to use a threatened (real and/or imagined) counter-force that seeks to destroy the atheist-rights-of-man political State. Terror comes out of the Revolutionary State. It is not a secret-society rebellion using extreme means, violence, assassination, bombings. That is the classical nihilism of one small group from among the dis-enfranchised and the dispossessed.

The Terror first emerged as an intrinsic part of the French Revolution. However, it is built into the democratic process. It has not a dialectic relation with democracy, but rather it is an organic element of it. It surfaced again in France in 1830 and again at the Commune. It appeared in 1917 in Russia and recurrently up to the death of Stalin. His was a populist government and, let it not be forgotten, millions sobbed at his funeral.

The American Revolution, itself responsible for the death of over half a million, moved swiftly and inexorably to the Terror which enthusiastically slaughtered the indigenous ‘natives’, just as the Parisian forces in the French Revolution wiped out the ‘savages’ of the Vendée, Brittany, and the Midi. Remember that French was not their first language. The Revolution in Britain in its first phase beheaded the monarch, Charles I, then after a Restoration it finally abolished active rulership of the monarchy but eventually needed the Terror of the Highland Clearances and its dreadful slaughter to achieve, finally, in 1745, what had been hailed in 1688 as the ‘Glorious Revolution’.

In our time the chain of terrorist events has been devastatingly analysed by a film documentarist who traced a doctrinal policy of Terror as follows:

The affair began in French Indo-China. The French generals soon recognised that guerilla warfare could not be fought by traditional military strategies. The French High Command initiated terror to combat the people’s resistance. Its key factor was interrogation, that is, torture of the enemy, and since the rebels were not uniformed, this meant of the entire population. It entailed entering houses by force, brutalising families, taking prisoners to interrogation centres, and after torture, disposing of the bodies. They were dropped from helicopters, or simply shot. This was rationalised as avoiding adverse media publicity. A secret protocol of method was drafted by the French generals. During the insurgence in Algeria this protocol became the order of the day. The so-called Battle of Algiers became the classical model of the policy.

Later, a group of Argentinean generals invited the French military ‘experts’ to brief them in the method at a seminar in Buenos Aires. This was attended by Chilean officers who were later to unleash this terror when Pinochet toppled the Allende regime. Present were American high-ranking officers who in turn adopted the Terror in Vietnam. Thus the Iraqi prison tortures and degradations had been official policy since Vietnam. All that happened in Iraq was that someone leaked the story.

If we, now that it is our turn, are to survive the terror, it is important that we refuse simplistic (media-model) descriptions of current events. We must seek a more complex metaphoric game by whose rules these events can be understood.

The media policy (of the Bankers) is to move long-term programmes under the smoke-screen of only viewing in close-up the quotidian violent events. Fresh blood prevents discourse. This is the philosophy of the guillotine. For example, Wahhabi nihilists behead an American. This is the opportunity to relocate ‘terror’ from them (the Bankers) to us (the passive international community) and evoke the adherence by the anti-terrorist humanists to the ‘values of civilisation’, that is, human rights, tolérance, democracy. At the time of the beheading, a man in the USA had just been sentenced to prison for murdering 17 young men, dismembering their bodies, and in some cases eating them (‘he only ate a few of them,’ pointed out his step-mother). This is a clear demonstration of the inner contradictions of the humanist‑revolution. A society that produces a serial killer and then only temporarily restrains him in prison is surely more terrifying than a politically motivated beheading. Indeed, the two phenomena belong together, are existentially the same, so that the Ur-phenomenon belongs inside the culture and not outside it.

If we adopt the model of 3-dimensional chess, then our first level of the game has to be the profoundly examined and deeply understood de‑construction of the hegemonic control of the dominant world model of its political imperative: democracy.

This demands not merely the removal of its protective shell: i.e. what it claims to be, but a recognition that the shell hides a contrary reality. The matter, as we will demonstrate, however, goes even deeper. It is not merely that democracy does not function at all as promised. It is that what, in turn, underlies the theory of the state which claims to actualise the ‘will of the people’ is itself irretrievably flawed, and has already proved itself an instrument of genocidal ferocity.

Our second level of activity must lie in the Thirty Years’ War. Its significance for us lies in its own highly relevant interconnection between differing societal conflicts. This will assist us in rejecting the Bankers’ official doctrine of a dualistic battle between good and evil. On the face of it, that prolonged war was a direct result of the continental plate-shift between an old European Empire and its small surrounding independent states. Another view revealed the power-struggle between France, Spain and Austria. The cataclysm when it came was defined as a war in which Reformation (mercantile) values triumphed over Catholic (land) values. To Schiller it also exposed the unpredictable and pivotal role played by men of power when they seize a destined moment.

The third level of the game concerns the modalities of finance. In this we discern primarily the nature of contemporary (modern in the philosophical sense) paper and base-metal coin currency, whose nature is void of intrinsic value. This is the key to modern ‘numbers’ finance which is measured against ‘real wealth’—commodities, land, products—but which in itself, as pure number, far from being real, is actually non-existent. This opens the next aspect of modern finance which we may define as the anxiety syndrome, which both incapacitates man’s faculty of reason, and also drives him to strategies of self-deception, represented by the everyday enactment that the mythic financial web, or ‘system’, forces on the human race with a staged realism that gives the Bankers both power and ownership. The emergence in Russia of billionaire oligarchs from absolute poverty in less than a decade, and the similar ex nihilo appearance of the adventurer Soros as a billionaire who can wreck national currencies, are regarded as part of the ‘rational movement’ of world markets.

In short, there can be no sustaining of banking capitalism without the perpetuation of endemic and collective hallucination.

This 3-dimensional game, both alluring and paralysing in its inter‑connectedness, is still dependent for its board moves and analyses, on the player. That player will either be an atheist, hypnotised or hypnotising, enactor of deception, mouthing his mantra ‘Democracy! Human rights! Tolérance!’, or he will be a liberated, free-acting Muslim who fears only Allah, repeating his dhikr, ‘La hawla wa la quwwata ila billahil ‘Aliyyul ‘Adhim.’

Taqwa demands the dismantling of the fantasy usurious market-forces system. The revolutionary atheist state inescapably needs the use of its Terror to impose the acceptance of these same magical market forces.