“BEYOND SPEECH”

Throughout the last century, nationalism has been demonized by being equated with distortions such as Nazism and fascism, but other such deviations have been silenced. This seeks to strip the identity of the states that suit Washington and London and maintain that of their allies.

 

By Danny Smith

The 20th century was the protagonist of the birth and establishment of an ideological antagonism born by the European intellectualism of the 19th century that ended in two great world wars and that was continued by the rest of the countries of the globe. Liberalism, nationalism and communism as central axes of this, led in turn to the creation of currents of interpretation that would end up demonstrating a similar nature.

The conception of the left and right, materialized in extreme currents such as Nazism, fascism and communism, provided a framework for the ideological and warlike conflict that (used by the Anglo-Saxon liberals) brought as a consequence the most horrendous and shameful calamities against the humanity that, despite such a lesson, would continue until the end of the century.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the USSR in 1991 marked a historical hinge that, in theory, would end this confrontation, but that did not happen. In the Western media story, the death of communism and even the end of ideologies were raised. But that wasn't so true. The atomization of the USSR triggered the revival of nationalism and even its most ultramontane exacerbations. Then. Although communism lay inert on a ditch in history, its usual rival (nationalism), on the contrary, was reborn, adulterated and raging with the power of a bloodthirsty zombie. What happened?

The answer is clear: He was secretly revived and nurtured for use when the occasion called for it. This, as expected, was convenient for Washington and London for certain cases and many of these exacerbated feelings had been fed throughout the cold war to undermine the political stability of Moscow. But with the Soviet Union gone, those resources would be available for new strategies.

This is how, for decades, the CIA and MI6 worked with ethnic minorities and political dissidence in the Caucasus, in Eastern Europe and even in the regions and countries bordering China (Nepal and Tibet) seeking to foment subversion, discontent social and disobedience against communist governments and even territorial secessions.

But it was not enough that the Soviet era ended. NATO never stopped its expansion plans.

Thus we saw how the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1991 represented the fragmentation of the state into three ethnic religious blocs that for decades lived in harmony and suddenly collided in a brutal way, recreating scenes that had only been seen in Beirut during the civil war. that? From a distance and with the current situation in Ukraine, NATO's responsibilities became clear, creating and putting into operation new armed groups that would later be used in the Caucasus and the Middle East. Created chaos and without an opponent such as the USSR (with an absent UN), promoting insecurity to offer its “Security System” did not represent any problem and it was in this way that the Atlantists brains were able to establish strategic points in Albania and Kosovo.

It was very useful for Washington and Brussels to revive the monster of nationalism, exacerbated by religion and the fear of uncertainty in countries that for seventy years were under a regime that had disappeared. Throughout the cold war, the CIA and its namesake partners worked with extremist groups and cells as assets to use against the USSR.

When that Status Quo disappears, those assets will continue to exist and began to be used for other purposes and in other scenarios. The existence of private armies (Stay Behind) under the direction of NATO, such as GLADIO and the Muslim Legion (linked to Al Qaeda and Daesh), was a secret that was kept for a long time, long enough to carry out several of the actions bloodier on European soil that were foisted on others (extremists of the European left and the Libyan Arabs).

With this it is clear that the phenomenon of terrorism was never such and much less only used by Arabs and Muslims. Terrorism is one more tactical tool in the arsenals. Long before the Second World War began, Zionist cells in Palestine (made up of European Jews) were already operating against the Arab population and the British protectorate, using terrorism as one of their most common tactics.

In this sense, let us remember that Zionism was conceived on the basis of Jewish nationalism, that is, a homeland for and only for the Jews regardless of whose land it was. This branch of nationalism was and continues to be enthusiastically supported by London and Washington and that is how the Zionists with Ben Gurion at the head managed to settle in Palestine.

Along with this situation in Palestine, when it suited the West, I do not hesitate to discretionally support Arab nationalism to consolidate its own interests in the region. Just as it has maintained its oil business ties with the Saudi royal family “Al Saud”, on the other side of the Gulf, the US (through the CIA) after overthrowing Mohamad Mossadegh in 1953 rose and forged excellent relations with the royalty of Persia. When the puppet and Shah of Persia Reza Palevi had to flee for the 1979 Revolution as part of his campaign against the Iranian revolution, Washington powerless to reverse the situation, instigated and supported the Iraqi national socialist "Baath" party led by Saddam Hussein to they bled to death in an eight-year war and then, after inducing it to the crisis with Kuwait in 1990, get rid of this Arab ally.

When George W. Bush said that one of the threats to democracy was nationalism and Islamist extremism, he was simply contradicting what the US had been secretly instigating for decades. To cover up this inconsistency, the media played -as usual- a fundamental role. Despite the fact that it was rhetoric for public consumption, his Israeli colleague Benjamin Netanyahu did not hesitate to establish very good relations with the most controversial far-right governments in Eastern Europe, including those that became Ukraine after the 2014 coup, especially with the current Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky who received him with a neo-Nazi ceremony in August 2019.

The latter should not surprise anyone since there are currently in Ukraine groups of Kurdish mercenaries financed and directed by Israeli agents who, in addition to carrying out terrorist acts against Iraq and Iran, work and cooperate with the Nazi “Azov” battalions. Washington has been at the forefront of this and if we don't remember the roles of Secretary of State John Kerry, his deputy Victoria Nuland and later that of John McCain who, as he did in Syria, in 2016 visited the neo-Nazi extremists in kyiv.

All this shows that beyond the trite media propaganda (to which the film industry is added) and the extensive literature that separates the right and the left as antagonists, trying to superimpose on this scheme supposed democracies and supposed autocracies in a game of good guys and bad guys, reality makes it clear that this was never the case and that beyond ideologies, Western governments respond to conveniences and interests.