PART 1 out of 4

|By Mylene Doublet O’Kane, Philosophy & History of Ideas, Teacher, writer, Israeli-French independent editorialist
|Editor’s note:
|The original source is the French language. This in-depth review is in 4 sections. The reader must be aware that once he has started to read, he may not stop. The philosophical analysis implies the claim of initial postulates which may not reflect the final conclusions.
|The author is an experienced teacher. She has developed a personal technique which favors understanding for both French |and English speakers.
|Sept, 2017
Author’s note:
This work was necessary to help the ordinary man connect the dots between the History of ideas, (Geo)-politics, ethics and the future of mankind. This is why nobody wanted to take the risk to write it. Hence, it is my personal honour and privilege to present this address, at a time when other thinkers in the West, among them the very greatest, are condemned to silence, thus to an exile from their fellow men.

“In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.”― Pirkei Avot, Ethics of the Fathers, II,1.

Nowhere has the UN’s failure been more consistent and more disappointing than in its vicious bias against the modern State of Israel. To the contemporary world, Israel was born seventy years ago before this assembly, but the consciousness of every man of goodwill knows that history says otherwise.


The voice addressing this assembly today has come across a long journey, the longest in the history of monotheistic civilizations. This voice may have been weak at times. It may have been an inner howling sound sometimes. It may have been outraged, slanderous, desperate, exhausted, hesitating, frightened, and even silenced. However, on its rocky path throughout the ages, the words formed were always blown with the wind of freedom. Once, this voice was given a divine advice. Let me quote it here:

“I am giving you evil (curse) and I am giving you good (blessing)”. In this respect, G-d set man free. “May you always choose Good”. The Hebrew text adds:” Only then, shall I do the rest of the way for you”, in Deuteronomy (30)

Obviously, human freedom was to be considered as the philosophical understanding operating the distinction between Good and Evil- certainly not as an expression of the common belief’s acception that freedom is a human right to do whatever suits a man best, whenever and wherever he may wish. Therefore, the notions of law and of brotherhood needed to be settled to rule over a community with the recognition that a righteous law only would eventually breed love, while taming a self-centered human nature.

Six millennia from now, under the Arch of the Covenant and with the blessing of one personal G-d, the first monotheistic humanistic existentialism was thus born, blossoming athwart a series of Commandments. Everyone in this room can easily remind of this one: “Love your neighbor as yourself” in (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18). Indeed, it is abiding because love can never meet boundaries and because the quality of your relationship to alterity only, can provide you with a positive identity of yourself. In this respect, freedom is love; should this reciprocal sign between otherness be disinterested. Meanwhile, nothing is further from human nature than unselfishness. This is the reason why were given Commandments instead of pieces of advice. This is also why Freedom, love, the notion of alterity, the respect for the family links were given with the compliance to a common law and status, as keystones for an enduring peace.

Plato’s opposite values (for i.e.: Good vs evil/ Justice vs injustice/ the truth vs lies…) -upon which was founded the western civilization- were most probably derived from the Mosaic Law after the sacred Jewish codex was translated into Ancient Greek. This is the reason why for instance, Numenius of Apamea – a Greek Neopythagorean and forerunner of the Neoplatonist philosophers who lived in Syria during the latter half of the 2nd century AD – would refer to Plato as ‘the Hellenic Moses’. However, let’s bear in mind that the Septuagint is much older “The Torah translation of the 70” whose Latin name derives from a Greek version is dated of the 3rd century BCE. Let’s also not forget about the words of Aristeas’ pseud epigraphic letter to his brother Philocrates [1]:

“The Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus asked for the Torah’s translation from Biblical Hebrew into Greek for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria“.

This historical narrative was successively repeated by Philo of Alexandria, by the historian and historiographer Titus Flavius Josephus [2] and by various later sources including St. Augustine of Hippo – the Algerian-Roman philosopher and theologian of the late Roman/early Middle Ages period [3].

Therefore, if it is fair to consider that the western civilization was founded upon the Jewish Mosaic Law (תֹּורַת מֹשֶׁה; the Torah of Moses) – no matter how far one intends to go back in history – it is also fair to admit that the rules and status forming the Torah have shaped our comprehension of Justice, our ethics and morals. For this exact reason, the Jewish people are known as “the people of the Book”. Along the way, only has our appreciation of the law been perverted in the sense that what was initially moral, fair and sufficient has regrettably slowly fallen into questionable matters of legality and of unequal repartitions of private property and wealth. Therefore, this gap has allowed the foundation of a Law written for and by particular interests.

Today, can we be satisfied that the United Nations does embody this state of fact? Does the United Nations still operate under this millennia-old law? Indeed, the Philosophers of the Enlightenments would rename it the Universal Law but quite ironically, the desire of murdering the theological postulate has proven itself unable to annihilate the divine precepts. The French triptych Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité may have been presented as a revolutionary one in 1789; as a ‘progress for mankind’. Meanwhile, let’s face the unbearable truth; these values were all together included in the Mosaic Law.

Likewise – since the Enlightenments have stated the assassination of the theological postulate as a necessary prerequisite to promote Humanism as a science-based version of the origins of the world – may I then make clear that from Baruch Spinoza to Albert Einstein’s pantheism, at no time were the divine commandments in jeopardy. The latter French concept of Laïcité (1905) –secularism encouraging the absence of government involvement in religious affairs, especially the prohibition of government influence in the determination of religion in the society – has proven unable to conceive a world from which the Mosaic Law is expelled.

In other words, from whatever angle we would wish to look at things – the atheist or the religious point of view- the Jewish heritage still prevails as an intangible cornerstone within the Western world. This may be the reason why French philosopher René Descartes was wise enough to understand that the notions of tabula rasa, of logical reasoning and of the existence of God were not only compatible, but necessary.

As neither of my eminent colleagues nor I have personally reviewed Einstein’s letters objectifying that the most prominent scientist in the 20th century would believe in a personal God, I shall not comment any further on the subject. Nevertheless, it might be of some importance for you to know that uncompromised philosophers are not surprised.

These introductory remarks take us to key questions:

What’s worth an international organization which has spent most of its existence blaming a country -known as the land of the Jews- in the name of “Peace between Nations”? What’s worth a constant double standard policy? What’s its purpose?

First Remark: Should we rather use the expression “Peace between Nations” or “Peace between Civilizations”?

In other words, is the conflict between Israel and the “Palestinians” a territorial dispute?

I shall spare this audience with a lame excuse of some sort. “Political correctness” is an empty concept. It’s a tyrannical censorship modus operandi intending to conceal the truth. The current fight over the control of information speaks for itself. Today, accuracy and relevance have become laughable, if not pathetic political attempts aiming at mass indoctrination.

Behind the Israel-Palestine powder keg, nothing less is hidden than the clash between two civilizations –The Islamic one and the Jewish Christian world. Throughout the ages, people’s cultural and religious identities have always been a primary source of conflict. Respective geocultural expansion concerns and later, energy dependency have shaped the relationships between these global players. Furthermore, an internal religious schism between Sunni and Shia Islam combined with an intentional partition of the world around two western ideologies [Communism and Capitalism] has allowed US-led Western domination, not only over the Sunni Islamic world, but over both civilizations. To escalate the hatred and divisions inside another civilization is an efficient tactic. To escalated hatred and divisions outside and inside both is an even smarter strategy. Meanwhile, is this Islamic schism tangible and eternal? Is Sunni Islam a reliable partner? Throughout a long process of questioning and of uncertainty over its future, is Sunni Islam clearly determined to adopt the western concept of progressivism/evolutionism, while acknowledging at the same time the backward-looking and Middle ages interpretation of his sacred text?

In other words, will a mirror effect -produced by the western ethnocentric concept of modernity- combined with geopolitical and economic interests be stronger than demographics and the ultimate commandment of Islam to convert the world? In this respect, globalization was a shrewd way to bind parties. However, would you deny that Sunni Qatar and Shia Iran maintain fruitful economic relationships for instance? Would you deny that mostly Sunni Afghanistan and Iran’s trade volume reached more than two billion dollars in the current year? Again, are Sunni and Shia Islam(s) irreconcilable?

What was a crucial military lesson taught by the Second World War? Adolf Hitler lost it after being barred access to very much needed oil reserves. Meanwhile, there was another lesson to learn, though seldom told. Even before his invasion of the USSR with intent to capture Baku’s dwells, shall we remind that Hitler regarded the Shia Iranians as a fellow Aryan race and that Reza Shah would have offered his oilfields, had Britain and the Soviet Union not jointly invaded Iran in September 1941?

Likewise, shall we remind the bond between Hitler and the Great Mufti of Jerusalem ; the greatest authority of Islam? They had fought together during the Great War. Both of them wanted to eradicate the Jewish people. As soon as Nov 1941, the Nazis appointed Haj Amin al-Husseini in an office – “Das Arabische Buro Der Grossmufti of Berlin” – and granted him with a monthly allowance of tens of thousands of dollars until 1945. His assistants also received a salary from the Third Reich. One of them was Hassan Salameh – the father of the Palestinian terrorist Ali Salameh –also known as the Red Prince – one of the perpetrators of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre of Israeli athletes. The Mufti eventually toured concentration camps in Poland with Heinrich Himmler. A secret plan was set up to kill all Jews in the Arab world and in Palestine. While hosting a radio show in Arabic calling for Arab countries to expel all Jews from the Middle East, the Mufti also asked the Nazis for extermination camps’ architectural and technical drawings with a view to reproducing them in Arab countries and in Palestine, so that he could implement the Final Solution in the Middle East after the German victory. Once, Adolf Hitler publicly declared:

“The only religion that I respect is Islam. The only prophet that I admire is Muhammad”.

In other words, Nazism and Islamism share a common Antisemitism. The former settled a hierarchical ordering on races. Thus far, the latter has planned a religious domination of the world ruled by the Sharia law. I have deliberately mentioned Islamism. We could also call it “political” Islam. Meanwhile, although I still want to believe that Islam is a pacific religion, allow me to quote Ayatollah Khomeini’s word: “Islam is political, or it is not”.

Hence, why has political Islam not been combatted as mercilessly as Nazism over the many decades, is a good question.

Not only does the answer obviously both reflect a western energy dependency and a convenient long lasting partition of the world around the United States and the Soviet Union after WWII, but it may also suggest an intentional long lasting breach within the Jewish Christian world for further vision.

“Is political Islam a useful weapon to be used in order to divert the world’s population from real concerns, in the exact same way that Nazism has durably frightened and hurt?”

This is an even better question. Nothing is as obedient and gullible as traumatized crowds, nations, civilizations, isn’t it?

Or to put it different:

Is the Jewish Christian civilization’s collapse silently organized? If so, for which purpose? The following curse of this letter may shade the light on this particular concern and subsequent paradigms.

Second remark: At best, the notion of a Palestinian people was not born until Nov 29th 1947, before this very assembly. It was created by the Western world. We shall not hereby mention the irrational and most selfish secret partition of the Middle East between the British and the French Empires ratified in 1916, namely, the “Sykes-Picot Agreements” (For the french version, please review my article).

However, after six million Jews or so were killed during WW2 and the rest of the diaspora was dispatched into camps for another couple of years, was it wise to create a Palestinian people that had never existed? No historical fact can corroborate such narrative. Indeed, throughout the ages, many occupiers have tried to rename the land of the Jews in an attempt to minimize or even ban the Jewish identification with the land of Israel. Meanwhile, is the U.N. credible when voting resolutions pushing irrationality? Over the next decades, the persistent efforts to twist historical facts and to re-write history have added unfairness to the largest mourning and international shame in human history. Nevertheless, the truth remains the truth. There is no difference between the so called Palestinians, the Syrians, the Jordanians and the Lebanese for the excellent reason that they belong to the same nation. The pursuit of a global agenda and the dissemination of an inclusive political narrative cannot justify the travesty of History, nor can they decently endorse a double standard policy. Quite ironically, hardly anything is as stubborn as historical facts.

Likewise, what’s worth an international body named UNESCO which repeatedly votes utterly politicized resolutions aiming at denying the historical links between the Jewish people and their own land?

Should “the UNESCO believe that education is a human right for all throughout life and that access must be matched by quality”, then rational thinking demands that these resolutions are declared null and void. If “the Organization is the only United Nations agency with a mandate to cover all aspects of education”, then such institution cannot decently disseminate unsubstantiated assertions. An enduring peace could never come from lies. My country is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God as it did 3,000 years ago. Archeologists have digged the soil and they’ve found pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and remarkably preserved 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script. My people, the people of modern day Israel share the same culture shaped by the Jewish heritage and religion passed through generations starting with the founding father Abraham (ca. 1800 BCE). Thus, Jews have had continuous presence on the land of Israel for the past 3,300 years. Abraham was never the Arab prophet Ibrahim. Abraham’s never been to Mecca for the excellent reason that Islam was not born until the 7th century CE.

Uchrony or alternative history can never be a wise answer. Dig under the Dome of Rock built between 636-1099 CE by Caliph Abd el-Malik, and you will find the vestiges of the destroyed Jewish Temple. Quite cynically, Jews are left with a wall and half of Abraham’s thumb to cherish in Hebron, and it seems more than what the Arabs can shew.

Indeed, Islam’s gigantic sovereign funds and energy resources talk. Indeed, the UNESCO’s agenda has been kidnapped by a convenient myth that covers up the clash opposing two visions of the world. However, the only religion that the UNESCO should worship is the religion of historical facts. Here lays the only wisdom aiming at a better Education.


Undoubtedly, you may oppose that my present address before you tends to defend Zionism, whereas one of the U.N’s goals is rather to protect Judaism, as all faiths. For instance, you may insist that many Jews around the world support the idea of Jerusalem being shared between the so called Palestinians and Israel.

Zionism and the Democrat

Undeniably, liberal/progressive Jews have a friend. His name is the Democrat. However, this one is a poor advocate of their cause. As French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre rightly put it in ‘Reflexions on the Jewish question‘:

“The Democrat doesn’t know the Jew. He doesn’t know the Arab or the black person. He doesn’t know the Capitalist bourgeois or the Proletarian (…) He only knows a sum of individuals and by the word “individuals”, he means a particular embodiment of universal attributes called the human nature or ‘race’. On the contrary, the Anti-Semite sees the world under the scope of a metonymy (take a convenient exception and turn it into a general law). For example, he would shamelessly assume and disseminate the false narrative that all Jews are rich. As an obvious consequence, the mutual dialogue is impossible. Therefore, the Democrat is not a great advocate of the Jewish people in the sense that he saves the Jew as a human being, while condemning him for being a Jew. The Democrat is afraid of a Jewish consciousness in the exact same way as he is afraid of a consciousness of class. In other words, the Democrat is disapproval of any form of collectivity. His only defense is to persuade individuals that they do exist as singular entities belonging to a big whole, named the human race”. [4]

In other words, in focusing on each individual instead of praising a national/ civilizational collectivity as a whole on behalf of better inclusiveness, in dislocating the family links by enforcing State power prior to parents’ rights over their own children, in making the Jewish Christian student feel ashamed or even guilty of his own heritage, in transforming “the Shoah” [an historical fact] into a religion and the Human rights into the worst type of ‘ideological’ education, in using retrospective illusion as the most pernicious weapon to teach history while increasing parents’ working hours, in encouraging drops in wages, overseas corporations’ relocations, globalization of capital, Central banks controlling over State powers, in enforcing unvetted immigration and in funding identity movements (races, genders, sexual orientations…) in order to complete the cynical vision of absolute control over merged civilizations in the name of “Peace”, not only have violence, hatred and chaos drastically skyrocketed within the Jewish Christian world but more significantly, the latest form of antisemitism has become anti-Zionism, as the most despicable result. Today, for the second time in less than a century, nowhere is the Jew less safe than in Europe, and it is a real shame to have to consider that international institutions have encouraged this state of fact by recurring boycotts, ideological campaigns and educational bias against what is left of the Kingdom of Israel.


Obviously, in order to guarantee his own stability and domination, the Democrat’s ideology has integrated both humanistic notions of liberalism and of progressivism. As mentioned earlier, the modern concept of humanism -originating in Europe during the Renaissance (16th century) would eventually represent a perception that Time and Progress towards human freedom were irreversible. This is what the Democrat promises to masses. These beliefs would eventually crystallize during the Enlightenments period (18th century) as a philosophy of global social emancipation ―a model for society proposed as the only rational possibility and therefore, as the better solution. Prominent thinkers such as Emmanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel would both develop this unproven theory involving that “Time has an emancipatory meaning”.

On the contrary, Karl Marx would assert that throughout the ages, the permanency of the class struggle prevails between the ones who own the Capital and the working force. From this historical materialism, Marx would divide the notion of State into three subject areas: pre-capitalist states, states in the capitalist era (i.e. present), and the state (including the possible absence of one) in post-capitalist society:

“The political state everywhere needs the guarantee of spheres lying outside it. (…) However, he as yet said nothing about the abolition of private property. He does not express a developed theory of class. The solution [he offers] to the problem of the state/civil society separation is a purely political solution, namely universal suffrage (…). The Executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”

In other words, Marx would rightly expose the high point of conformance of the state to an economic interpretation of history in which the forces of production determine peoples’ production relations and their production relations determine all other relations including the political, whether the latter may address the so called Democrats, social-Democrats or Republicans and/or respective internal discrepancies.

Main French theorist of Anarchy, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, would also extensively write on the relationship between an individual and the State. Against the common modern belief, Anarchy is not a synonymous for absolute chaos. It is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based upon voluntary institutions and non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the State to be “undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful to equality and freedom’s implementation”. Proudhon would share this vision with Marx that collectivization of goods and means were aiming at better equality and fair redistribution of produced wealth:

“The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign—for all these titles are synonymous—imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once … [and so] property engenders despotism … That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one needs but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse … if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings—kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be anything but chaos, confusion and a network of particular interests? (…)The liberty and security of the rich do not suffer from the liberty and security of the poor; far from that, they mutually strengthen and sustain each other. The rich man’s right of property has to be continually defended against the poor man’s desire for property. Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social, but anti-social. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions.” [5]

The irony here is to have to consider that both popular humanistic theories [Marxism and Anarchy] have deliberately been vilified, demonized, stolen, biased and/or instrumentalized as far as today and particularly brutalized during the first half of the 20th Century. In each country – from Europe to China, Japan, Russia, Latin America or the United States and regardless of its forms – the State power has persecuted both Marxism and Anarchy [that powerful international trade-Union organizations would embody best] through multiple means: physical repression, the judicial branch and mainstream media organizations. For instance, the U.S. government orchestrated bloody crackdowns on IWW members (Industrial Workers of the World), notably during the First Red Scare after World War I. It also drastically corrupted membership and influence in order to provoke 1924’s schism in the organization, from which the IWW never fully recovered. Another example remains famous. Everyone can remember Sacco and Vanzetti’s case, and it is not until after the 50th anniversary of their executions that on August 23, 1977—an official proclamation finally admitted: “Sacco and Vanzetti had been unfairly tried and convicted (…) Any disgrace should be forever removed from their names”. Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists in the sense that anarchism also includes physical violence (war) as a last recourse to recover human freedom and a true democracy. Does U.S.-led military interventionism vocally promote different ambition? Does NATO ask the U.N. for an executive mandate prior to aggressive actions on a systematic basis? We shall discuss these issues shortly.

In Russia, Lenin -then Stalin- chose another method of liquidation of people’s hopes. Both Marxism and Anarchy were successively used to reach power, and then abused. Lenin would eventually betray Nestor Makhno -the Ukrainian anarchist and the commander of an independent revolutionary army during the Russian Civil War of 1917–22. Stalin would turn Marxism into a stereotyped totalitarian regime. Nestor Makhno would end his life as a basic assembly-line worker in a Parisian automobile plant. (cf. Boulogne-Billancourt)

In a nutshell, from whatever angle you would wish to consider at critical or speculative philosophy of history, the nature of a State has a sole goal; to perpetuate his own survival. Under a “democratic” Capitalistic form of regime, the nature of the State is to perpetuate his own survival by preserving the interests of the hierarchical oligarchy he serves. From Hobbesian “Leviathan”, Machiavelli’s “The Prince” [two forms of Powers including an initial social contract with subjects] to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”, the question of survival and of domination was always crucial. Montesquieu’s theory of “separation of powers” between three independent branches (Executive/ legislative and judicial) was eventually vampirised by a fourth branch; the western Private Banking network.

Within the Christian world, how to overthrow Popes, emperors and kings was always the only question for private bankers. By contrast, for the Jewish bankers, how could their community survive in the Christian world was always crucial. Several revolutions were a part of the answer. Ultimately, an alliance of financial forces, scientific progress, two world wars and an artificial partition of the world were instrumental in dividing the same civilization, while taming people’s great expectations until the 1960s. The artificial partition of the world has also been instrumental in escalating divisions within non-Western civilizations.


Was Hegel right? Has time an emancipatory meaning?

To test the validity of such intellectual assumption, let’s get to the core of what has emerged from all the rage occurring in the USA [then in Europe] during the 1960s according to which, a dynamic of global homogenization based upon further industrialization, urbanization, rationalization and market growth would succeed in eradicating cultural, political, institutional, structural and social differences between nations.

Almost 60 years later, the ethnocentric question is whether people living within the western civilization believe that Time has evolved towards more freedom, or do they consider that from westernization to globalization, Time has evolved towards more inequalities, human slavery and mental indoctrination – these factors being encouraged to increase competition and hatred between people? Nothing is as frightening as united masses, isn’t it? The latter answer beats all record heights. Why?

One-dimensional man

The debate opposing a positive ‘modernity’ to ‘old fashioned conservatism’ is a laughable diversion. Likewise, the dispute between Soviet Communism and Capitalism was utterly superficial in the sense that both ideologies were meant to stabilize and perpetuate authoritarianism and local “aristocracies”. As early as 1964, French philosopher Herbert Marcuse would offer a wide-ranging critique of both contemporary western Capitalistic society and the Communist society of the Soviet Union. However, he would not fall into the trap of assimilating Marxism to Stalinism; a convenient U.S. propaganda bias since 1945. To build and control an Empire, Manichean heroism, demonization and one-sided ideological and political indoctrination must be enforced, rather than disseminated. In this respect, money is the sinews of war.

Hence, before Marcuse’s remarkable work can be explained, a few remarks must be made.

  • Let’s remind that a Private Banking system in the US (FED) was finalized by British and American Bankers in 1913; a year before WWI. In this regard, allow me to quote the Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s:

“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

  • In parallel to this honest and courageous statement, historians and academic scholars have made it clear by now that the funding of the Russian Revolution by European/American bankers had nothing to do with their desire to spread Marxism or with sympathizing with the Marxist cause. They funded the Bolsheviks for three main reasons: “The Russian oil fields, the establishment of a Central Bank, and the hope of getting rid of the last Tsar. Both America’s Standard Oil which belonged to the Rockefeller family, and the Royal Dutch Shell of which the Rothschild families were the major stockholders, had interests in the rich Russian oil fields. However, these oil fields belonged to the Tsar Nicholas II. The last three Tsars of Russia (Alexander II, Alexander III and Nicholas II) had successively opposed the creation of a Central Bank in Russia which would be owned by global bankers.”

In “One-dimensional man” [6], Marcuse documents the parallel rise of new forms of social repression in both these societies [under Capitalism and Soviet Communism], as well as the decline of a revolutionary potential in the West. He argues that “advanced industrial society” creates “false needs” (an intellectually impoverished society of leisure) which integrate individuals into the existing system of production and consumption via several vectors such as mass media, advertising, industrial management and contemporary [“modern”] modes of thought. Marcuse would refer to the democratic society as “a non-terrorist economic and technical system of mental, social, cultural and political homogenization in the name of public interest. (…) This totalitarianism subjugates all members of society to the domination of technology and its economic prospects. In other words, “Economic-technical coordination” structures society and manipulates the desires of all individuals to coincide with the advancement of the political-economic state. The individual disappears and is operationalized as a part of the economic machine. Trapped in a vicious private banking system based upon ever-growing individuals’ debts, driven by false needs imposed by the economy, the mass media etc., but also being manipulated by a superficial, theatrical, narrow and disappointing political spectrum, the individual finally comes to lack the transcendence and analytical awareness to critique the world around him. Hence and quite unmindfully, the individual slowly atrophies into a “one-dimensional thinker.”

From the 1980s forward , the combination of fluctuant currencies [resulting from Gold standard rule abrogation], further international capital flow deregulations aiming at further financialization of the economy [and thus] at further interdependence between economies, overseas corporations’ relocations, the Columbia University’s plan [which would create a European Central bank implementing a too-high fixed currency conveniently devastating 19 EU industrial models to the exception of Germany] were instrumental in destabilizing western countries as well as in skyrocketing individualism.

To go further into details, I shall firstly analyze what occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. During this period remembered as “the Wall Street’s golden years” (‘Les années fric’ in French), further urbanization and further democratization of goods eventually resulted in less social control associated with a misleading feeling of egalitarianism. Individuals and particularly the young generation became more autonomous, independent and self-centered. Besides, further industrialization combined with scientific progress led respectively to the specialization of countries according to their comparative advantages and competition transformed the typical worker into a self-oriented man devoted to personal calculation. All combined, these factors generated the deceitful feeling that workers were miraculously disconnected from their social class, and that all men were finally released from the social hierarchy.

After forty years of globalization, the reality shows otherwise. What has quietly reappeared in most advanced capitalistic western economies is a generalization of low wages and increasing precarious social conditions; a model somehow comparable to the 19th century’s notion of “Sweating system”.[extended working hours/ low wages/ ever-growing loss of social rights]. As for the Millennials, the results are almost as disastrous as irreversible. “NO FUTURE” graffiti is tagged on the walls of almost every western university and especially in France, which says a lot in two words about humanism.

In other words, not only have a deregulated financial system and economic globalization drastically increased unemployment in western countries, but more significantly they have accelerated individualistic conducts, while shaping the “one-dimensional thinker”.

Or to put it different, economic globalization was always a means aiming at intensifying competition and deeper divisions in international labour, while conveniently disseminating the unproven Hegelian assumption that “Time has an emancipatory meaning”.

Key question is :

How to increase even deeper divisions while pretending otherwise? How to give the illusion that the Marxist notion of “class struggle” is dead forever? Regardless of his race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc., can a 20 years old non-academic citizen borrow as much money from the bank [or at all], as the one who combines economic, social and cultural capitals or at least, one in these three capitals?

In other words, what’s worth the “humanistic” idea of a Universal salary?

A Universal salary: Deep in the heart of heartless Masters

The idea is at least as old as Thomas More’s novel “Utopia” (1516) which would develop an early Christian communism reflecting in attitudes and practices in relation to private property:

“Take a barren year of failed harvests, when many thousands of men have been carried off by hunger. If at the end of the famine the barns of the rich were searched, I dare say positively enough grain would be found in them to have saved the lives of all those who died from starvation and disease, if it had been divided equally among them. Nobody really need have suffered from a bad harvest at all. So easily might men get the necessities of life if that cursed money, which is supposed to provide access to them, were not in fact the chief barrier to our getting what we need to live. Even the rich, I’m sure, understand this. They must know that it’s better to have enough of what we really need than an abundance of superfluities, much better to escape from our many present troubles than to be burdened with great masses of wealth. And in fact I have no doubt that every man’s perception of where his true interest lies, along with the authority of Christ our Saviour, would long ago have brought the whole world to adopt Utopian laws, if it were not for one single monster, the prime plague and begetter of all others—I mean pride. (In Book I)

Almost five hundred years later, the question of private property and of fairer redistribution of wealth blatantly challenges the Hegelian postulate [Time has an emancipatory meaning]. Nevertheless, a “better” solution has lately emerged. Among others, Bill Gates, Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk, French socialist-Democrat candidate Benoît Hamon during the 2017 presidential campaign and most recently Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg, have mentioned the allowance of a Universal salary as a potentially “revolutionary” path towards better equality and wealth redistribution. Both Bill Gates – then Mark Zuckerberg- have also referred to “a tax on robots as a possible means”, although the idea does not reflect ongoing experimentations tested in various European cities. Far from it. But even if so, at no time would neither the notion of class nor of discrepancies in individuals’ economic capitals be suppressed from the equation for the excellent reason that innovation, apprenticeship, initial and continuous education could ever cope with global demographic predictions. In other words, the apparent “progressive” idea of “a Universal salary” and hypothetical tax on robots” sets a trap.

It is not the nature of work or of jobs that are going to change, but the nature of the human identity itself, that is soon going to be changed to such extent that no individual will be able to realize that private property increasingly goes to fewer hands of Masters and relative class of elites.

I do not want to go too fast in my reasoning so that the ‘world class of servants’ to which I belong can gradually understand why Artificial Intelligence, RoboTics and NanoRobots/[NanoBots] are about to operate irreversible changes of existing paradigms in our human identity. As of now into my address, one should only know that NanoBots are microscopic robots [to an atomic scale] which are already pulling apart any kind of material (soil, water, air, etc.), atom by atom. In the very near future, these Nanorobots are going to be able to swim through the bloodstream and construct in our brain [Neo-cortex], well…, just about anything.

Meanwhile, I do not want to jump to 2024 or 2029. As of 2017, I want to address the following question:

To a human scale, is a “clash of classes” still possible?


Could ANTIFA groups, Black Lives Matter, White Lives matter, White supremacists, Jewish Lives Matter, Muslims Lives Matter, Women’s Lives Matter, National socialist-Neo Nazi groups, Islamic networks etc., from all across the world come to realize that inflammatory divisions and hatred are deliberately escalated and manipulated in order to divert people’s awareness from an extremely near outcome which would irreversibly stabilize and perpetuate the domination of a class of Masters over servants?

Can a “third International” of the third Millennium somehow find the way to unite with a view to breaking through an irreversible circle of domination?

Masters, servants, scapegoats. All throughout the ages, human’s slavery and abuses have shaped the relationships between men around the notion of private property. Today, 1% of all human beings control 99% of “The wealth of Nations”. 8 billionaires own half of the global wealth. Why have individuals of all nations ever let that happen?

As long as U.S.-led State powers have been able control the information and ‘the truth’ to be disseminated within the western block, the answer to the question has been obvious. The narrative has been mere simple. The mythological structure has been efficient. “Some people were evil. The other ones were good”. Since 1945, Western Individuals have been raised, fed and somehow shaped to fit into a Manichean capitalistic system of mental indoctrination.

The Internet’s revolution and forced democratization in order to rake more profits has suddenly reshuffled the cards up to the point that historical factuality has been able to not only emerge and circulate worldwide as fast as we can speak, but it has also finally been able to bring solid evidence to the table. From that understanding, can we not only understand better why WikiLeaks’s founder Julian Assange is locked up inside an Embassy or why hundreds of individuals have their reputations destroyed or their lives frightened, sometimes taken on a daily basis, but we can also perceive more tangibly the importance and roles of increasing both internal divisions and extra-civilizational terrorism within the western world. To maintain confusion and fear was always deliberate. It echoes the western Masters’ ultimate plan. This plan is so refined that the common western citizen can only comprehend the tip of the iceberg, namely, a disguised censorship of free speech and further deprivation of civil rights.

As just mentioned, after an exceptional freedom due to the internet revolution, the Manichean order serving a class of western elites has indeed returned. Today, censorship of the truth [what is conveniently called alternative truth or conspiracy theories] is being justified in the name of security and of public interest. Although Sunni terrorism kills around the world, Shia terrorism must quite irrationally be blamed. In the same way, White men must hate black men and vice versa. Muslims must hate Jews but Sunni Muslims are nice, and Shia Muslims are evil. Again, domination comes from divisions and instrumentalization ; what Friedrich Nietzsch would call “fracturation de l’universel”. Can this phenomenon be reversed? Can the private banking system be driven to collapse? Within each western civilization, can collectivization of goods and of productions be organized? Can a fair redistribution be operated by non-profitable committees? In other words, can new anthropological paradigms be finally settled? Can men decide that human freedom is not about possession and accumulation? On a broader scale, can a barter system be implemented between civilizations? Can we conceive the reshuffling of existing divisions between the human race, in abolishing both the ethnocentric vision and religious notion implied in the concept of “civilizations”? Would we call it a progress for mankind? What will be the next revolution?


When the mainstream media declares: “All political ideologies are dead”, are they right? If Karl Marx has been extensively caricaturized, there must be a reason. If an analogy has been artificially and durably drawn between Stalinism and the late Soviet Communism, then why? If the false narrative continues to be pushed, then why? If today, hardly anybody knows that Marx and Keynes would share a common vision for mankind, why is it so?

In “The General Theory”[9], Keynes famously pointed to the “outstanding faults” of the capitalist economy, “its enormously unequal division of income and its inability to maintain full-employment equilibrium”. These outstanding faults have resulted in producing recurring instability in the investment process of capitalism; the engine of the Marxist theory of “accumulation”.

According to Keynes, Capitalism is “a system characterized by uncertainty”. “Investment loses its dynamism when expected profits on new investment are depressed, due primarily to present and anticipated demand constraints. As investment outlets vanish, capital turns to speculation, giving rise to asset bubbles that generate financial instability and the prospect of more serious crises in the future”.

The principal doctrine that Keynes challenged was that “the economic system is always operating up to its full capacity. As better answer, he would propose the “euthanasia of the rentier”; a substantial decrease in capital’s share of income, and “a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment”.

He would also advocate for “limited controls on international movements of capital”, while listing characteristics of which “happen not to be those of the economic society in which we actually live”, and which therefore “lead to results which are misleading and disastrous“.

Although Keynes’ belief in capitalism was never in question, he’d rather assume that “mistakes are made in monetary policy and in regulatory systems” that have pulled the economy back down into the “special case” of Keynesian “depression economics.”

Marx would dare to push the critic of capitalism further. According to him,

“The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces, as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit.”

Concerning financial expansion and crisis, Marx wrote in volume III of “Das Kapital”:

“The whole sphere of production may be saturated with capital, with the result that profits increasingly enter into the sphere of speculation. If new ‘accumulation’ [of capital] meets with difficulties in its employment, through a lack of spheres for investment [i.e., due to a surplus in the branches of production and an over-supply of loan capital], this plethora of loanable money-capital merely shows the limitations of capitalist production. The subsequent credit swindle proves that no real obstacle stands in the way of the employment of this surplus-capital. However, an obstacle is indeed immanent in its laws of expansion”. [i.e, in the limits in which capital can realize itself as capital]”.

As sociologist Pr. J. B.Foster rightly put it in Monthly review – March 1, 2010 :

“The ‘credit swindle’ arising with the turn to money capital as the basis of the amassing of wealth inevitably precedes a bust. “Business always appears excessively sound right on the eve of a crash.” For Marx nothing was more natural than a liquidity crisis in an economic slowdown, where capital hungered insatiably for cash. Mimicking Davidic Psalm 42, Marx once wrote: “The capitalist desires and hordes money in every form is alike: “the hart pants after fresh water, so pants his soul after money, the only wealth.”.

In other words, contrary to a “noxious accumulation of capital”, both Marx and Keynes [in ‘Economic possibilities for our grandchildren’] would figure out a world in which “a man could work in the morning and fish in the afternoon”. Unlike the caricaturized vision of a lazy ‘post-working’ society, both thinkers would marvel at a world in which the true meaning of human emancipation could come from scientific progress and in which corresponding generated surplus of capital could be reinvested in the real economy and in human capital, not in speculation.

What about the Republican?

To address the problematics in terms of opposition between equality (typically, the U.S. Democrats, the Liberals and the Western European countries’ democrat-socialist ideology) vs Liberty (the Republicans) are irrelevant, not to say a pernicious misleading.

Earlier, we have extensively commented on the political vision promoted by ‘The Democrat”. What about the Republican? Does this one not also voodoo globalization on unfair financial basis in the sense that he believes it to be the expression of the ultimate freedom? Indeed, the Godfather of Capitalism-Adam Smith- would praise a free market. Meanwhile, many have forgotten that his notions of “invisible hand” and of “win-win bargains” were exclusively valid under a frame of pure and perfectly competitive economic system. Our modern reality shows otherwise, enlightening an international private banking system creating 95% of the money out of the blue (thus a pernicious system based upon debts), gigantic corporations and situations of monopolistic or oligopolistic markets. Under this scope, free entry on the market, the notions of atomicity, fluidity, transparency of the market and of homogeneity of products are certainly not respected. So much for entrepreneurial freedom and progress for mankind. Let’s speak the truth. Today, the States have lost their powers. At best, they have become shareholders. At worst, they have betrayed the people and nations they were supposed to defend in turning a blind eye on tax evasion, on lobbies ‘influence, on western US-led questionable hegemony. A way to pretend otherwise while entertaining and dividing the people is called politics, but the true rulers and winners stay in the back-scenes.

Under a capitalistic model, the allowance of a universal salary would only create a “second-zone” class of western workers because, again, at no time would the notion of discrepancies in individuals’ economic capital be suppressed from the equation. At no time would the competition with non-western low labor force be suppressed either and because at no time could innovation, apprenticeship, initial and continuous education ever cope with global demographic forecasts.

All relevant and broad studies combined emphasize that the only sustainable model would both command a dramatic decline in global fertility, mortality hikes and stagnant rates .

Key question is:

Can human nature fight against itself? Can procreation be suppressed from human’s basic instincts and goals? The answer is: NO. These natural attributes are physiological and psychological regulators in all living species and ecosystems, except maybe among the oldest primitive asexual worms. Thus, even if conceptually feasible, a “clash of classes” would not be sufficient. Therefore, let’s state for now, as the most rational hypothesis, that a “clash of civilizations” is unavoidable.

Simple Demographic

The world’s population will reach 9 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by the end of the century. According to the most reliable non-partisan Pew Research Center:

“India is expected to replace China as the world’s most populous country. India’s population [mostly Muslims and Hindus] is expected to increase by 400 million by 2050. Its projected population of 1.6 billion will be almost equal to the populations of the U.S. and China combined.

China is projected to add only 25 million in the same period, [although one has to notice that China’s government has lately stopped its ‘one-child’s policy]. In addition, on her northwest border (Xinjiang), China experiences a conflictual situation with region’s Uighur ethnic Muslim group, some of whom ask independence on a soil under which can be found oil resources. Thus far, region’s ethnic Han Chinese majority is backed by the government.

Muslims’ fertility rate is 24 years, whereas the Jewish Christian world is both old and in decay:

 “While the world’s population is projected to grow 32% in the coming decades, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by 70% – from 1.8 billion in 2015 to nearly 3 billion in 2060. The main reasons for Islam’s growth ultimately involve simple demographics. Muslims have more children than members of the seven other major religious groups analyzed. Muslim women have an average of 2.9 children, significantly above the next-highest group (Christians at 2.6) and the average of all non-Muslims (2.2). In all major regions where there is a sizable Muslim population, Muslim fertility exceeds non-Muslim fertility. By 2060, 27% of world’s population will be located in sub-Sahara Africa, but more than 4-in-10 Christians are expected to live there, whereas people with no religion are projected to decline as a share of the world’s population. Therefore, if demography is destiny, then Christianity’s future lies in Africa”.

Then where do we go from these factualities?

Samuel Huntington’s theory : “The Clash of Civilizations”

Although not the first to use the expression, Samuel Huntington’s theory of “Clash of Civilizations” was first unveiled in a 1992 article, then during a lecture before the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). While asserting that “the age of ideology has come to an end”, he then insisted that

“Cultural and religious identities will be the primary axis of conflict in the future. (…) Future wars won’t be fought between countries, but between cultures. (…) Islamic extremism will become the biggest threat to world peace. (…) This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth descriptive hypothesis as to what the future may be like”.

According to Huntington, civilizational conflicts are “particularly prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims”. In this respect, the author has geo-localized “bloody borders” mostly dispatched between Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations. This conflict dates back as far as the initial thrust of Islam into Europe, its eventual expulsion during the Iberian Reconquista and the attacks and invasions of the Ottoman Turks in Eastern Europe. “Europe is the resulting ethno-religious demographic legacy started as soon as Islam has emerged”. According to his own expression, Russia and India represent ‘swing civilizations’, which may favor either side [Muslim or Jewish Christian world’s domination].

This assumption can be questioned. Although western Russia undeniably finds its roots in Europe, there are more than 193 ethnic groups among the 146.8 million inhabitants of the Federation of Russia (including Crimea). Around 77% of its population lives in European Russia, while the rest lives in its Asian part. Most ethnic Russians have a so-called European appearance, but there are many Russian citizens who could be classified as ethnically Asians. Asians can simply be described as Mongoloids. Among them can be listed Kalmyks, Evenks, Yukagirs, Buryats, Tuvans, Khakass, Chukchis, Koryaks, Eskimos and Aleuts. There are many more ethnicities of the Mongoloid type in Russia. However, identifying them is exceptionally hard since after many years of coexistence, they have mixed in all kinds of proportions. Therefore, the term Asian is quite misleading and vague. For instance, Asian-looking Tatars and Kazakhs are of mixed origin and have both Caucasian and Mongoloid blood. Furthermore, race and ethnicity are not connected at all. Race is a biological concept, while ethnicity is just a social notion.

These observations suggest that Russia may ‘favor’ Eastern civilizations. We could obviously think of the Chinese one. For the first time in decades, Russia’s Christian birth rate has stabilized and has even slightly increased, whereas Muslim population continues to be very fertile. (i.e. Bashkirs, Uzbeks and Kyrgyz…). Considering that recurring clashes with the many Sunni Muslim ethnic groups occur, notably along Russia’s southern border, (i.e. Chechnya), if Russia is constantly pushed away from the Western world, one can logically conclude that the Federation may carry on her cooperation with China and Iran to avoid further Muslim-Christian violence, western funded Sunni terrorism on her own land via her southern borders, and to meet her economic goals.

Furthermore, Huntington also notes that a

“Sino-Islamic connection is emerging in which China will cooperate more closely with Iran, Russia, Pakistan and several smaller countries (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan…) to limit Muslim expansion along her North and western borders.”

Two decades have passed since Huntington’s predictions, and this is excatly what China has started to do three years ago in cooperating more closely with Afghanistan on the Tadjik border for instance, to avoid Muslim infiltrations on her homeland. Chinese military special units have been deployed, and China has increased her financial support to the country

Furthermore, China’s two digit annual economic growth has considerably driven global growth, while it has dramatically increased trade-partnerships and direct investments in BRICS (Bresil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), in Venezuela and in many African countries to augment Chinese cultural, geopolitical and economic influence. In the past few years, China’s President Xi Jinping has also presented a bold construction project named “One Belt One Road” (also referred as OBOR), which will be a “new Silk Road” linking Asia, Africa and Europe”.

Last May, “The Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation” was held in Beijing, gathering 28 heads of state and government leaders [including North Korea]. In this respect, China now appears as the leader of globalization. Chinese presence in Davos Summit last year is an unprecedented signal of Chinese capabilities for both regional economies and market opportunities for global corporations. In comparison, the economic U.S. influence has somehow plummeted, indicating that America’s only way to maintain her global influence is to go through regional destabilizations, military interventionism, funds dedicated to Sunni terrorism and further ideological narratives echoing the old partition of the world.

Recently, the U.S. Congress has adopted an aggressive legislative sanctions “package” directed against Russia, Iran and North Korea and Washington has granted China six months “to prove that it is committed to preventing a nuclear-armed North Korea”. The irony isn’t lost here.

Although Beijing has expressed in the strongest terms its opposition to the DPRK’s nuclear weapons program during a recent U.N. Security Council, “the political deadline is coupled with veiled threats of punitive trade measures which could result in the disruption of China’s exports to the United States. Moreover, the White House is intended upon conducting “an investigation into China’s trade practices”, focusing on alleged violations of U.S. intellectual property rights. A “Section 301” investigation, named after a portion of the 1974 Trade Act is slated to be launched, notes Pr Michel Chossudovsky :

Following the completion of the investigation, Washington threatens to “impose steep tariffs on Chinese imports [into the US], rescind licenses for Chinese companies to do business in the United States, or take other measures, which could, “pave the way for the U.S. to impose sanctions on Chinese exporters or to further restrict the transfer of advanced technology to Chinese firms or to U.S.-China joint ventures.

(…) But China is not dependent on U.S. imports. It is quite the opposite. America is an import led economy with a weak industrial and manufacturing base, heavily dependent on imports from the PRC. If China, following Washington’s threats, decided from one day to the next to significantly curtail its “Made in China” commodity exports to the USA, It would be absolutely devastating, disrupting the consumer economy, an economic and financial chaos. (…) Besides, “Made in China” also dominates the production of a wide range of industrial inputs, machinery, building materials, automotive, parts and accessories, etc. not to mention the extensive sub-contracting of Chinese companies on behalf of US conglomerates.”.

As an insightful analysis in The Altlantic clearly puts it:

“Made in China” is the backbone of retail trade which indelibly sustains household consumption in virtually all major commodity categories from clothing, footwear, hardware, electronics, toys, jewellery, household fixtures, food, TV sets, mobile phones, etc.  Ask the American consumer: The list is long. “China makes 7 out of every 10 cellphones sold Worldwide, as well as 12 and a half billion pairs of shoes’ (more than 60 percent of total World production). Moreover, China produces over 90% of the World’s computers and 45 percent of shipbuilding capacity“.

One should never underestimate China. In diplomacy affairs, to humiliate or to threaten is always a bad conduct to adopt, and China has a long memory.

Decades of confronting China

There is little doubt that the United States, from as early as the 1950’s has politically, financially, and even militarily backed or sponsored political dissidence inside China. Harvard University’s peer-reviewed “Journal of Cold War Studies” has an entry titled, “The Tibetan Rebellion of 1959 and China’s Changing Relations with India and the Soviet Union” which spotlights the U.S. participation into the destabilization of China.   Let me quote some extracts :

“(…) As a result, many Tibetans, from both upper and lower classes, rebelled against Chinese rule and formed the “Four Rivers and Six Ranges” guerrilla group. The rebels, as we now know, received carious kinds of support from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).”

The publication’s footnotes offer even less ambiguities:

“(…) Washington made the decision to support the Tibetan resistance in the summer of 1956 and the first group of Tibetan rebels was secretly brought to Saipan for training in December 1956. The trainees were then sent back to Tibet in 1957 to help the Tibetan rebels to establish contacts with the CIA and to join the resistance themselves. Available Chinese sources give no indication that the Chinese Communists were aware of America’s secret involvement in promoting the rebellion in Tibet during this period.”

In addition, as early as the Vietnam war, the United States has openly or covertly tried to occupy and expand a permanent military presence in Southern Asia as a means to ‘ring and contain’ China. Released in 1969, The “Pentagon papers” officially titled, “United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense.” revealed that the Vietnam War was only one part of a broader strategy:

“(…) the February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.

(…) China, like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 1930s, and like the USSR in 1947- looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us”.

(…) There are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR ‘contains’ China on the north and northwest.

  1. The Japan-Korean front

  2. The India-Pakistan front

  3. The Southeast Asia front”

In 1989, the events that occurred on Tiananmen place may be the result of more than 30 years of global campaign of US-backed subversion. The strategy is almost monotonous which can be characterized by a constellation of similar attempted “regime change” aimed at subverting China and overthrowing the political order in Beijing. Communism is a pretext, as Democracy is a pretext. The only truth points to U.S. global domination’s ambition.

In the wake of revolutions orchestrated by the US in foreign countries, from what we today know about the US-led Kiev’s coup in Ukraine (2014), the Arab Spring in 2011, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine starting in 2004, and Otpor’s activities in Serbia during the late 1990’s, it is clear that the United States regularly employs methods used to destabilize and overthrow foreign governments and then subsequently replace them with a regime more favorable to Washington’s hegemonic designs.

US Neocon Senator John McCain, the Director of the NED (New endowment for Democracy) and Obama’s Ambassador to the European affairs would foment the Kiev’s coup, while the CIA armed Neo-Nazi groups resulting in more than a thousand of eastern Ukrainians’ assassinations. The superficial aim was to force Vladimir Putin into a conflict. The deep objective was a regime change in Russia with the help of funded Russian so-called dissidents praising “Democracy”. During the Arab Spring, including The New York Times in an article titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings” would admit that multiple US government agencies trained, funded, and equipped protesters across the Arab World in a coordinated campaign of geopolitical destabilization constituting a deliberate attempt by the US to reorder the Middle East and North Africa to align with its interests.

The western media exploitation of tragedies has no limits, especially when human tragedies are orchestrated on purpose by America’s Great Regime-Change Industrial Complex. “Which kind of Democracy are we talking about?” seems an obvious question.

China’s “One Belt, One Road” Initiative: “the silent collapse of the western civilization’s domination?”

A New Silk Road linking Asia, Africa and Europe may appear as a powerful attempt to pacify the world. It may also suggest that Islamic civilization along with ‘Indian/Russian ‘swing civilizations’ may move forward less western domination than expected.

The Silk Road economic belt and the Maritime Silk road of the third millennium

Russia, China, Africa

According to “Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road” – the official guiding document of OBOR:

“(…) One of the six routes of the “Belt” passes Russia and at least two passes Central Asia. Furthermore, Africa has been one of the integrally important regions regarding the successful implementation of China’s ambitious One Belt One Road (OBOR) project.”

Just as in Eurasia, China is planning to cover this continent with a network of railroads and highways which will stretch from the ports along the eastern coast of Africa all the way to the western coast. As a result, a merged Eurasian-African economic space will take shape, resulting in the creation of the largest free trade zone in human history. At a final stage, the New Silk Road will link Asia to Europe and Africa, and to the Americas.


As of now, Beijing continues implementing its plan for 2016-2018, adopted at the China-Africa Cooperation Forum in 2015. Back then, China would pledge to invest a total of as much as 60 billion dollars across the African continent, along with taking every effort to develop African road and railway infrastructure as well as ports. If Africa has a future, it will move forward with China.

According to Russia’s historical economic and regional interests, China sees Russia’s cooperation as a key to the construction of one of the belts, as of for the whole success of the OBOR. Opposite to the Western long tradition of colonization, destabilization of countries and of empowerment of easily manipulated dictators, China and Russia may represent a “humanitarian way”. Considering that more than 4 in 10 Africans will be Christians in the coming future, Russia has definitely a role to play in Africa.

Moreover, since Russia’s transcontinental rail was connected to OBOR and China-Mongolia-Russia economic corridor started to build, freight volume rocketed up in the railway routes from China to Russia, and to Europe via Russia, both of which used Russia’s transcontinental railroad, such as Chongqing-Inner Mongolia-Russia (Yu-Meng-E) and Hunan-Inner Mongolia-Europe (Xiang-Meng-Ou), which had positive effects for both China and Russia.

Although EEU was initially Russia’s priority and OBOR was first seen more as a rival, China’s clarification and commitment on connecting the two projects eased Russia’s concerns. As a concrete step, a document was signed in the middle of 2016 in which the two governments decided “to formally start negotiations on an economic partnership, mainly focusing on trade facilitation, merging different standards on intellectual property, customs, and other areas. Furthermore, it might not be wise or feasible for Russia to contain China’s influence in Central Asia or larger scope, by boycotting this initiative. Of course, the influence of Russia, the “elder brother” in Eurasia is still dominant, but close political, economic, cultural, language and even people-to-people ties with the five republics in this region have increased. In the past decade, China’s influence in the field of economics in this region grew very quickly and as such China has been able to compete with Russia, if not surpass it”.

Central Asia Sunni/Shia countries, India, Malaysia


OBOR is basically based upon the actual needs of China, Russia and all central Asia countries including Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (CEPC Project) [under the frame of the Silk Road economic belt] and India, Malaysia and Africa for instance, under the scope of the Silk Road maritime belt. China has enough political will and financial resources to push forward. “In 2015, all Central Asian countries had a larger share of their two-way trade with China than with Russia except for China’s exports to Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and imports from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.” OBOR is attractive to Central Asian countries because the focuses of this initiative, such as promoting connectivity, facilitating trade and investment, and improving infrastructure are all imperative to them. Moreover, the build-up of mutual regional trust and cooperation in other areas such as western-funded terrorism has also increased China’s influence and say in this region.

Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan – where Xi Jinping first announced the “One Belt” initiative – are typical central Asia countries which have close relations to both Russia and China.

For instance, in May 2014, one year before the Vision and Actions was released, the then Uzbek President Karimov stated that “Uzbekistan would actively participate in the building of the Silk Road economic belt”.

In June 2015, China and Uzbekistan agreed to expand trade and economic cooperation under the framework of the ‘Belt initiatives’.

In June 2016, although Karimov was killed under strong suspicion of U.S-covered operation, Uzbekistan maintained his positive attitude to OBOR. When asked off the record if China was concerned about [more] attempts to sabotage the bold project, a Chinese official in the delegation pinched his lips while smiling, before stating: “According to your hypothesis, do you think it would be wise or smart for American economy?”

The main areas of cooperation under the OBOR framework include economic and trade cooperation, gas pipeline, railway tunnel construction, people-to-people exchange, etc. and much progress has been witnessed since a series of pacts were signed. For example, the Qamchiq Tunnel in Uzbekistan, which is a part of the Angren-Pap railway line that connects Tashkent and Namangan, was completed on June 22, 2016 as a major achievement of OBOR.


Several key areas and projects have been highlighted by both Malaysia and China under the umbrella of OBOR, including infrastructure, transportation, energy, property and even education.” For example, 60% of the equity of the 1MDB-owned Bandar Malaysia project in Kuala Lumpur was sold to a consortium led by a Malaysian company and China Railway Engineering Corp (CREC, a stated owned Chinese company) at RM7.41 billion in early 2016“. As expert Zhao Bingxing rightly put it: “In November of the year, following an official visit to China by Najib, Malaysian and Chinese companies saw the signing of fourteen agreements on several iconic and mega agreements worth RM144 billion. Another eye-catching project which China hopes to incorporate into OBOR is the High Speed Rail (HSR) connecting Malaysia and Singapore. Though the final result of HSR bidding will not be available until 2018, it is a general consensus that a Chinese-led consortium is one of the two most promising competitors (the other is Japanese-led consortium) because of its successful precedent as set in Indonesia”. He adds:

Malaysia has basically maintained friendly relations with China over the past few decades. In fact, Malaysia was the first country in Southeast Asia to build formal ties with China in 1974. Such good relations are also explained by little strategic conflict between the two countries and a frequent people-to-people exchange due to the large Chinese ethnic population present in Malaysia. It should be noted that if territory disputes between the two countries do exist about the waterways in the South China Sea, both Malaysia and China however seem to be restrained about such and downplay this dispute, which is unlike the situation between the Philippines and China. As a result, a closer look at the bilateral economic cooperation between the two countries shows that two-way investment and trade involves different sectors, from manufacturing to construction, and different regions in these two countries, which reflects the in-depth and successful cooperation of both. Malaysia believes that much of its needs in infrastructure, transportation and investment can be met by joining OBOR.”


In 2016, China became the biggest trading partner of Germany, overtaking France and the US for the first time. Germany has long been China’s biggest trading partner in Europe. From China’s perspective, Germany’s significance for OBOR primarily lies in its geographic location as one of the destinations of OBOR as well as its identity as an important actor among Western countries, which means that cooperation on OBOR, if successfully implemented, may set an example for other Western countries in Europe and attract more Western partners. Overall, the German government holds a relatively positive position towards OBOR and its focus is mainly on the areas of improving connectivity and trade and investment facilitation. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel has welcomed the initiative to secure more Chinese investment in Europe.” At the same time, a more reserved position and some ambiguity have transpired from German government. For instance, when asked about the position of Germany on OBOR, German Consul General in Hong Kong stated that “Germany welcomed China’s openness to the rest of the world, but any roads and any belts should be and will be in both directions”.

Meanwhile, as notes expert Zhao Bingxing: “For years Germany’s policy on China has been split between the economic interests and ideological considerations. On the one hand, it cannot ignore the Chinese markets and cooperation with China, which has brought huge benefit to its economy. On the other hand, Germany’s free market capitalism and values can hardly accommodate China’s development and expansion based on the Chinese model and thus deterrence is required. This dilemma has inevitably influenced how Germany looks at OBOR and what impact OBOR will bring to Germany. The result is, not surprisingly, a temporary balance between the two objectives. Of course, such a balance is not unchangeable and the struggle over economic interests and ideological principles will continue. A recent and noticeable event that occurred which may sway Germany’s position might be U.S. president Trump and his isolationism. Before Merkel’s meeting with Trump, Merkel and Xi stressed a commitment to free trade during a telephone call. This move signals that Germany may have to attach more importance to achieving economic cooperation with China, which means OBOR will probably have a more favorable environment in Germany in the future”.

To some extent, the case of Germany can reflect the general European situation. It basically coincides with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s statement, which also emphasizes “the importance of investment and links and holds that this initiative can bring huge benefit to both China and the EU”. Indeed, Europe needs to grow investment. But Europe’s soul is humanitarian because the old continent is, by far, the most well-read. As sad as it is, the U.S.-led obsolete NATO’s influence on Europe echoes her impossible position. A religion metaphor would represent her as a crucified icon. Only if, and when she faces her condition of ideological slave, shall she reach absolution and redemption for her colonialist past ambitions. Until then, she is a sacrificed scapegoat. If Europe has a future, it can only be achieved through reconciliation to Russia; her historical ally.

Quite logically, Zhao Bingxing correctly notes that :

The representation of Germany shouldn’t be overestimated. On the one hand, there is no official EU position on OBOR as of yet and EU countries also lack a collective voice. On the other hand, the Germany case is more applicable to Western Europe than Eastern, Central and Southeastern Europe. Unlike Germany, most countries in the Central, Eastern and Southeastern parts of Europe are less developed and thus need more infrastructure building assistance and foreign investments, which brings them more opportunities to cooperate with China under OBOR. And this has been evidenced by a series of cooperation between two parties, such as the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO)’s purchase of the Greek port of Piraeus and China’s building of a high-speed railway from Hungary to Serbia”.

Under such circumstances, which civilization is the biggest threat to human freedom?

Huttington’s theory does not address this question which for ethicists, philosophers and all experts in human sciences is ontologically crucial. Is it the Islamic civilization? Is it the Chinese civilization? Is it the convenient and well-torn “Red scare” commonplace? Is Russia still a threat to the western world, or does this nation serve as an old fashioned U.S. fear monger in order to push further domination inside and outside the western world? Could the western civilization, as embodied by the U.S.’ selfishness, be the last fascism left to the world, if Fascism can be defined as follow:

“Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood, in which a massed-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.” Robert Paxton (1932- …), American Historian[11]

“When fascism comes to America, it will not be labeled ‘made in Germany’; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism”. Halford Edward Luccock (1885–1961), American Methodist Minister and Professor.

“Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it”. Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), German-born, Jewish-American political theorist. [12]

Why has North Korea’s threat suddenly become unacceptable? Likewise, after a nuclear and economic deal was signed with Iran in 2015 [which would conveniently throw Iran back to the mercy of western-led international banking system], why is Iran being named and shamed along with all Shia Muslim countries, whereas western-funded Sunni terrorism is the one that kills the most across the world, except in Israel?

Why was President Donald J. Trump’s first international tour dedicated to Sunni Islam, Judaism and to Christianity? Why has Sunni Qatar been lately isolated on the grounds of economic partnerships with Shia Iran? Why is a new war in Afghanistan about to begin?

And what if, the biggest threat to human freedom was those Masters in the West who may take the lead of a quiet technological revolution, namely AI –RT (Robotics) and NanoBotics which would change human identity forever? Furthermore, what would happen to the ‘useless’ class of servants which would not belong to the privileged group that would operate these technologies?

Introducing a brief contextual flash back

Over the past two decades, an apparent chaos has been able to cover up the logics of the plan to masses. Seen from the outside, an accelerated course of events has successively stacked up Sunni terrorism (9/11/2001), war in Afghanistan (2001) in the context of a questionable GWOT (Global War on Terrorism) and a ‘Patriot Act’ conveniently depriving U.S. and NATO’s State-member citizens from privacy for further vision. War in Shia Iraq (2003). Further Intelligence spying methods and devices [see Wikileaks’ collection of unprecedented solid evidence “Vault 7 – Year zero”]. European Constitution passed on anti-democratic grounds (2007). In 2005, countries such as France voted against the EU constitution. A predictable U.S. financial crisis [financial deregulation/toxic speculation] and subsequent economic crisis (2008), Euro-zone banks’ toxic debts shamelessly and illegally flipped over each EU citizen’s head. The return of France under the U.S.-led integrated commandment of NATO (2010). Western-orchestrated uprising of Arabic populations or so-called “Arabic spring” which conveniently justified wars in Sunni Libya (2011), then in Shia Syria (2013), the consequence of which resulted in the surge of Muslim immigration and Sunni terrorism in western countries from 2015 forward, etc.

This quite disturbing and puzzling acceleration of time and of confusing concerns have blinded people’s awareness to the point that can now appear absolutely “justified” and wise the idea of a planetary governance or of a “New World Order” [to quote former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in his latest interview to Bloomberg, Charlie Rose Aug 2017]. So can also be more easily tolerated further deprivation of civil rights and Liberties as “necessary actions” to protect western democracies from “Sunni?”, “Shia?” terrorism. For the Cartesian philosophers of my generation, the absence of clear Islamic target has let the cat out of the bag as soon as the early 1980s.

First and foremost, to believe in a divisive strategy consisting in using Sunni Islam to crush Shia Islam and the Soviet Union [i.e. War in Afghanistan (1979-1988)/ recurring US-orchestrated uprisings of dissident movements, political and diplomatic maneuvers in Europe, the Middle East, China etc.] showed the most selfish vision of the world. We should name who we are talking about shortly.

Secondly, these actions have resulted in the constitution of a gigantic block of unleashed Muslim countries which would eventually stretch from Georgia to north eastern China [from West to East], and from Georgia to Northern India, [from Northwest to Southeast] with Shia/Sunni regional lines of common interests. I shall not even mention hereby the subsequent disasters generated by Yugoslavia’s dismantlement into a “balkanization” phenomenon which would dramatically increase Sunni cultural power from Albania to Kosovo and Macedonia under Turkey’s influence, bloody clashes between Islam and Christianity;  arms and drugs trafficking left aside. Earlier last year, when Vladimir Putin publicly declared:

“In time, the collapse of the U.S.S.R will be remembered as the worst mistake of the 20th century”,

some may have believed that he was only referring to the European Christian world’s collapse. More significantly, he was referring to those Masters in the West who will take the lead of a quiet revolution against a global class of servants.


The race for the control of the last natural resources and the U.S. military-industrial complex interventionism, as last attempt to avoid US dollar’s collapse.

1/The economic structure which has been driving economic growth for the past 30 years has now exhausted itself. Rational reasoning concludes that the time for a transition to a new system of technologies has come. Unfortunately, history has proven that these transitions have always come about through wars. This phenomenon has occurred in the 1930s, when the Great Depression gave way to an arms race (to the exception of France) and during World War II. This is what happened during the Cold War, when arms race in space gave birth to complex information and communication technologies which further became the ground of a sophisticated technological structure.

Today, the world is facing a similar crisis. The new technological era includes as many fields as space programs, military and/or civilian Robotics, military and/or civilian nanobotics, cognitive technologies etc. The major problem is that this new era demands the capture of the last natural reserves.

Including your smartphone, your VR headsets, or your smartwatch compile ever-growing AI (artificial intelligence) technology which can either be presented as an enhancement of your personal experience or as the most pernicious means of implementing a quiet ‘selektion’ on individuals ( via collections of personal geolocations,  personal health conditions, personal reaction to stressful environments, IQ and EQ levels but more significantly quite unique collections of human identity characteristics [through AI facial recognition] for example). Indeed, this apparent “humanistic ambition” [time and progress have an emancipatory meaning for mankind] covers a gigantic hidden data of “Nazi compulsive ordering on the ‘human race’. Furthermore, the major issue remains; this new order demands the capture of the last natural reserves.

Hence, there are three options:

  1. As rational, loving and caring human beings, we accept to mutualize our capital of knowledge in every field of fundamental and applied researches such as cognitive technologies, agro/biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, communications, telecommunications, etc.) and we agree on sharing the last natural reserves. Under this frame, the old partition of the world obviously becomes obsolete and a humanitarian or humanistic world in nature can finally emerge. As a first consequence, this frame evaporates Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ with the understanding that if Time has an emancipatory meaning, it can neither imply the endless reproduction of past mistakes nor the reactivation of failed ideological myths.
  2. If the U.S Neocons (Neoconservators) and Pentagon-led war machine disagree, another option could put forward the idea that we are able to agree on mutual challenges and programs giving birth to a development zone with preferential trade and financial systems which could stretch from South America to Vladivostok. This would create a unique common economic space, a common zone of breakthrough projects which would give a tremendous boost to this new technological system.
  3. Or, the traditional and most likely war scenario relaying of the 1945 partition of the world is still privileged to serve western bankers’ grim ambition aiming at capturing all the wealth of the many nations and at exerting a global domination over a class of useful servants. Was the Nazi project any different?

Undeniably, this latter ambition is orchestrated against the American people’s will, against the Israeli citizens, a large number of whom cannot ever afford a decent housing or a piece of meat everyday if wished [to preserve the monopolies of ten wealthy local families, as to facilitate low interest rates for foreign investors that fuel the housing bubble], and against the western citizenries themselves.

Business insider has just revealed that “the Pentagon is now spending 80% of individuals’ income tax revenues“. The US Senate is now expected to increase the U.S. military budget by over $100 Billion (nearly 20%) to $696 Billion. In his time, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the American people about the sudden rise of a Military-industrial complex. In the following video, Senator Rand Paul (Rep-Kentucky) points to the extent of this war machine and the ability for the U.S. President to start wars on unconstitutional basis. The details provided are extremely concerning.

“I rise today to oppose unauthorized, undeclared, unlimited and unconstitutional wars anywhere, anytime, anyplace upon the globe“.

If the nations of the world were given a voice, they would definitely vote for the first option. Of course, Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign has raised great hopes for China, Russia and all citizenries across the world eager to implement a humanitarian global vision opening way to better repartition of all capitals (natural, human, cultural social/economic). His commitment to tame the Washington war making machine and the U.S.-led NATO’s traditional interventionism could have changed decades of intentional hatred and obscurantism inside and outside the western civilization. But behind this U.S.-led interventionism, one has to remember the old western bankers’ vow to overthrow popes, Emperors and kings.

Today, an apparent ‘Democracy’ led by powerless Presidents or Prime Ministers has not altered this ultimate ambition. The goal remains a global domination over a class of servants. All servants? It’s very unlikely. We shall discuss this point in section 2. As of now, the U.S. war making machine is back on track, while the war with economic tools is also threatening all economic partners, including U.S. allies.

Towards a divorce with Europe?

A/ The European energy market

Tensions have lately escalated between the US and the EU amid President Trump’s efforts to impose U.S. gas deal to the European Union, which would put at risk European companies of the sector. The construction of the North Stream 2 gas pipeline allowing the Europeans to buy gas from Russia- despite objections from Washington D.C.- “exposes a continuous selfishness of the successive U.S. Administrations and therefore, the American recurring necessity of triggering the failed myth of the Russian threat over Europe”. Under these circumstances, the following strategic move becomes obvious:

  • The US favorite toy to pressure Europe remains NATO and its continuous provocative policy

Almost gone unnoticed, hardly anybody knows that Angela Merkel had to personally block Georgia’s and Ukraine’s accession into NATO in 2008-2009, which was advocated by the U.S.

The German’s chancellor opposition was the major reason why the Obama administration further abstained from supplying lethal U.S. weapons to Ukraine, under the same scheme which would later be employed in Syria.

In 2014, the US-orchestrated Kiev’s coup and the CIA-fomented Euromaidan’s uprising were finally preferred. The CIA also trains and arms Neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine on a regular basis. As mentioned earlier, they were told to perpetrate massacres on Russian-speaking eastern populations with a view to forcing Vladimir Putin to intervene. A quite similar scenario had already been used in March and April 2011 in the Southern city of Dara’a, in Aleppo but also in Damascus – Syria -where CIA agents fomented the so-called ‘Syrian spring’ with roof snippers told to shoot on demonstrators on purpose. The intentional move resulted in civilian fury and hundreds of arrests. Later, lethal weapons, including chemical weapons were opportunely passed to US- backed rebels and terror groups gathered under the so-called free Syrian army.

Back in 2003, the U.S. Pentagon already fabricated evidence of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) which further conveniently justified a war in Iraq [finally won in less than 3 weeks].

Last April 2017, 59 U.S. missiles were quite surprisingly thrown on Syria in response to chemical weapons allegedly used by Bashar Al Assad on his own people, whereas the Syrian official army was obviously winning the war. It is almost unnecessary to remind this audience that Bashar Al Assad had always protected the Christian community. After Russia has finally had enough of putting up with 6 years of a 19 nation- coalition’s intentional inertia covering a legion of pick-up cars, it took less than 6 months to the Russian Army to reverse a cynical process.

“Why did the use of chemical weapons on Syria’s population of Khan Shaykhun – a city in the rebel-held Syrian province of Idlib – immediately claim Bashar Al Assad’s responsibility?” The answer is a crystal clear predictable face-saving attempt, and the only acceptable justification for a U.S. ground forces reinforcement in Syria.

Anyhow, at the end of the day, facts are stubborn. Most American taxpayers would be interested to learn that back in 2014, they paid fortunes to ensure the U.S.-supervised destruction’s process of Syrian chemical weapon armaments, and that this operation was being carried out using Russian technologies. U.N. inspectors were present during the all length of the elimination process.

President Obama personally reported on and took all the credit for this, while the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) would receive the Nobel Peace prize for this precise reason. In addition, the U.N. commission on biological and chemical weapons even stated that Damascus destroyed its chemical weaponry the same year.

A United Nations independent commission of inquiry confirmed as early as May 2013 that:

“The rebels- rather than the Syrian government- had chemical weapons in their possession and were using sarin nerve gas against the civilian population”.

Last April, on which rational grounds did the U.N. deny the Russian demand of such impartial commission of international experts? Why has access to the area been denied to international experts present on the ground who could have provided a drastic insight on who really conducted the operation?

@Mylene Doublet O’Kane, sept 2017

Editor’s note :
|End of Part 1 out of 4. The rest of the review is published with the same picture and title.
| references: Part 2 , Part 3, Part 4
Thinkerscorneronline @2016-2017
Republishing of the articles is welcomed with reference to TCO
The views of the authors do not necessarily coincide with the opinion of the editorial board.