I
wanted to start not with all the details, but with this idea of being a human
being. The problem is--I was talking to a friend of mine a couple of days ago,
and he was saying that there was a saying that says, there are two types of
people, those who make history, and those who are victims of history. And the
good news is that there are still places, it's not fully booked on both sides of
this, so everyone, even here, can choose to book a place on the people who will
{make} history, rather than being victims of history.
It's in these times of crisis, like this, like especially with a
relatively small country like
Denmark
.
Now,
we have a much better chance now to win, than lose, for the sake of mankind, but
it's this type of crisis which actually, rather than demoralizing a nation, a
nation can come out of it much stronger, and much livelier, and not only for its
own self, but for the sake of all mankind. So, each one of us can be a
historical individual, having the idea that they do mean something, and they can
intervene into history, not simply as a spectators or victims of events, but
being able to understand how history is shaped. That's the real problem here, is
that, is how do you react in a
situation like this. What is the problem? Why people are unable to contribute
positively, or being able to deal with these kinds of problems? They would
rather leave it for people who have power. They say, ``We are powerless, we can
do nothing, it's the politicians, it's the mass media, it's the powerful
institutions who can do things, we are not really... nobody's going to listen to
us."
But
it's not true. Quite often in history, it's that people who not before had the
position of power, or been popular, or been government, or been rich, they often
change history -- like in the case of Jeanne d'Arc. Somebody who nobody thought
they would be of any meaning in society--they can change history. And this
applies to everyone of us.
But
the problem is like in this case of a global crisis, because it's not a Danish
crisis.
Denmark
has
been chosen as a burning point to escalate this crisis, but the issue is more
general. But to be able to deal with this kind of crisis, it's very important to
understand how you position this crisis in history. But you can't understand the
current history, without having a deeper understanding of history in general.
And that's where people don't really understand the idea of cultural warfare.
Because
this is cultural warfare. You can manipulate people, and their religious beliefs.
And this is not new. This is very old. You can manipulate religious beliefs in
order to make people behave in a certain way, which you desire, in order to
create conflict, and manipulate conflict between two groups, as Tom was saying,
so you can end up on top of it. So you can actually orchestrate the conflict, to
achieve certain either economic or strategic objectives. This is, as I said, an
old story, but throughout history, we have had--the reason that there is hope,
is that it is not only evil which has been running the affairs of mankind, but
throughout history we have had these two systems, these two models. One is an
imperial model, which says, human beings are animals. A group of powerful people,
with economic resources, with military forces, and a priesthood--a group of
people who are clever in manipulating the emotions and thinking of the
population--they can rule over a big mass of slaves, human cattle. They keep
them often fed, and happy, or sometimes unhappy, fed and unhappy--like George
Bush. Keep them stupid. Keep them at the low level of life, and use them as
slaves.
And
that has been the one faction. On the other hand, we have had a tradition in the
history of mankind, of what we call a humanist republican, which says every
individual is a sovereign, creative person, of historic importance. Tom said,
created in the image of God. And therefore society has to be organized on the
basis of respecting and promoting this idea of man as being a creative being,
sovereign.
But
the history of the manipulation of religious belief, and this idea, is that it
did not come with the
British
Empire
. This
idea of divide and conquer, using religious belief in order to manipulate whole
populations. The best latest example in history is the Crusades, whereby the
crusades was not about religion in reality. Religion was used, to manipulate
populations in Europe, and in the Islamic world, to get two forces clashing, in
order for Venice, which was the financial, economic empire, sitting in a corner
of the Mediterranean, would be running world trade, and world economic matters.
And they would be the financial center, which would loan money to people who
would go to war. All these Crusaders from
Europe
, they
needed money, and ships, and weapons; where would they go? They would go to
Venice
,
because
Venice
was
the financial, economic empire of the time. And for them, this war was very
important to control trade, from
Asia
to
Europe
,
through the whole
Mediterranean
. So,
most of these battles around the Crusades, dealt with controlling important
ports on the
Mediterranean
.
But
what they needed is a priesthood--they were bribing the Pope, sometimes, and
bribing other priests, to stir up the emotions. "They are raping Christians
in
Jerusalem
!
Let's go and liberate
Jerusalem
! And
on the other side you would have people who would mobilize in a similar way.
Like today, you have people in the Islamic world who run around and say, "They
are burning the Koran in
Copenhagen
. We
have to go and fight!" It's that way that these kind of religious emotions
are controlled.
But
this is a historic model. The British inherited the Venetian model, as Tom said,
``divide and conquer." You have a strong position between two, or three, or
four parties. You are both their friend and their enemy. Like in the case of
Iago in {Othello} [{The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice}], you know,
Shakespeare's drama. You know, Iago knows everyone and this {Othello} is
actually about
Venice
.
Shakespeare intentionally places the act in
Venice
,
because Shakespeare, as a statesman, not simply a dramatist, understood history.
But Iago is the person who manipulates everyone. He knows the weak points of
Othello. Othello is jealous. Now, okay, we have one weak point about Othello. We
have one other guy who is ambitious, he wants to get into a position. You have a
nice wife, Desdemona. So, Iago is in a position to manipulate everyone, and
getting everyone into conflict, to come out as the great winner in this game.
But he knows what are the weak points of each player.
He
goes to Othello, and says, "You know, I'm your friend. Don't get angry, but
this guy Cassio might have a relationship with your wife. But please don't get
angry! I don't want you to get angry. No, no, no, forget about it, forget about
it! Because that will only lead to trouble. Forget about what I told you."
And
Othello says, ```Oh, my God..." Iago knows, the guy is going to go crazy.
It's
like the Iranian President. You know, Jack Straw says, ``Let's send
Iran
to the
UN Security Council. We have to show them that we are tough. We don't want to
have war with
Iran
, but
we have to show them that we are tough, and we mean business, so that they will
cooperate." And Jack Straw knows that, if the Iranians hear that, that they
will {never} cooperate. So,
Russia
and
China
accept
this suggestion, as if this were a positive step: get the Iranians to be more
cooperative. But they know, as soon as the news came out in the morning, the
Iranians said, ``Shut down all the diplomatic channels, we don't want to
cooperate any more, that's it. We go and take off all the cameras, and we will
run our business."
And
this, they knew. Because they have the profile of the Iranian President. They
know how he thinks. And this is what the British have been doing for more than
200 years.
-
The
Middle
East
,
Before World War I –
And
just to make it short, this is the picture of the region of the
Middle
East
,
before World War I. Now, the British had
India
, they
had part of
Iran
, they
had
Egypt
and
Sudan
, but
they--one could go into more detail why they wanted to have World War I. Because,
throughout the second part of the 19th Century, you have had a cooperation in
Eurasia
,
between specifically,
Germany
and
Russia
. You
had even the Ottomans involved. But there was a move in
Europe
, to
replicate the enormous technological and economic progress which was achieved in
the
United
States
,
specifically since the Civil War, up to the beginning of the 1900s.
That
was on the basis of what was called the American System of political economy.
It's not what is happening in the
United
States
today.
This is what Mr. [Lyndon] LaRouche wants to bring back, into the American
political and economic policy. But for Britain, because it's a maritime force,
has no control over the inland of Eurasia; and also, they had to secure their
colonies in India, all the way to Tibet, and so on, and control the seafaring
routes from the Mediterranean through the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, into the
Indian Ocean. Their only way to be able to keep control--and remember that the
British--it's like the Nazis, they thought the
British
Empire
would
last for 1,000 years. So, they would have to find ways of controlling, not only
controlling these areas, but getting everyone above this area to fight:
Russia
,
Germany
, the
Balkans, the Turks, and the
Caucasus
, and
so on and so forth.
But
it's a classical case of how the British managed to manipulate everyone, and
come out of it completely in control. Because they, on the one hand, already
before, in the middle of the 18th Century, they would send their agents,
intelligence agents, or archaeologists, or anthropologists, to go into all these
regions, and try to find out the mentality. And to build alliances with tribal
chiefs, religious personalities, religious cults, and so on and so forth. And
also, that they used that knowledge in order to organize tribal forces to make
sure that
Russia
never
gets close to the
Indian
Ocean
. They
needed to build alliances. This was called the Great Game.
But,
throughout that period, they managed to get into very strong relations with the
tribal chiefs in the Gulf, and the
Arab
Peninsula
, and
so on and so forth. And they had deep knowledge of the culture, of the religion,
of the social divisions, every aspect of life in the area. But with the coming
of World War I, now the British wanted to take control over all the region, but
they don't have the possibility, both to fight a war on the Western front, and
fight the war with the Ottomans, and at the same time, expand in these areas.
So, they have to build alliances. They need friends. They can't do this job
alone. They don't have the economic, military--.
So,
they started a process where they were promising every group, every possible
group, in that region, that after the fall of the
Ottoman
Empire
--because
that was the idea: The Ottoman Empire has to be demolished, and divided, and
destroyed, and then you will recreate the region. It's like the current
situation: redrawing the map of the
Middle
East
. This
is what the neo-conservatives in the
United
States
talk
about. But in order to finish that process, they had to get into alliances with
forces who will help them destroy the
Ottoman
Empire
.
So,
they made promises to the Arabs in the
Western
Peninsula
. The
Sharif was saying, and all the details you will find in
our publications, but I don't want to bother you with all the details,
but you had different forces fighting in the Arab Peninsula, like the Saud
family, and the Sharif family. And they knew there was a fight, the British were
supporting both sides. And keeping them away from each other. But they were
promising them that, if they helped the
British
Empire
in the
war against the Ottomans, they promised the Arabs to have an independent state
in all that region. They would have
independence. You know, the great uncle from
Britain
would
give them all that region to have a nice, cozy pan-Arab state, in all the
region. And the Sharif was saying, ``We'll be the king over that kingdom."
In
the meantime, because they were in alliance with the French, because they needed
the French in the war, and also to be able to control this area, they got into
discussions with the French imperial power, because
France
was an
empire. And this is interesting, even in today's situation, because the
French--and the British know this very well--the French have a weak point: They
think that they are a great colonial power, and that they have the right to have
control over areas faraway from
France
. Like
North
Africa
. They
say, this is French, this is our property.
Syria
,
Lebanon
. And
even today, they are being manipulated, they are being told that, "Look,
you went against us in the Iraq War, and you got nothing. The British control
southern
Iraq
, the
Americans control the rest, and you got no piece of the cake. So, don't be
stupid. We are the ones who are running the show. We will start regime change in
these regions, and unless you help us, you will not get anything."
-
The Sykes-Picot Treaty –
So, now, the French are playing the same game of regime change in
Syria
and in
Lebanon
.
Because they have somewhere inside their head that
Syria
and
Lebanon
are
French spheres of influence, and this the British knew very well. Also, there
are historical reasons. So they managed to get this agreement, it was called the
Sykes-Picot, after the names of a British intelligence guy, Sir Mark Sykes, and
a French negotiator by the name of Francois Picot. So they, in secret, they drew
this plan: this is how the
Middle
East
will
look after the war. If we win, the French will take that part, with
Syria
and
Lebanon
, and
Britain
will
take this part, and you will have a zone in the middle that's the British sphere
of influence. And then they told the Russians a secret: If we win the war, you
will get that part of
Turkey
up
there, the grey area; and they promised the Italians a piece, and the Greeks,
and everyone. And they promised, at the same time, the Arabs, that if they
helped
Britain
in the
war, they will give them all this area as one Arab state, which they can run by
themselves.
And,
at the same time, in 1917, the promised the Jewish community in
Britain
, that
if they win the war, they will give
them a Jewish state in
Palestine
, to be
a national state for the Jews of Europe. But they needed also the support and
influence of very powerful and rich Jewish families, like Chaim Weizmann, father
of the late President, who was owning a huge chemical production plant, which
was influential in the war, in the war machine. So, they were promising everyone
a piece, and playing a friend of everyone. "But, don't let the others hear
you. I tell you this secret, but don't tell anyone."
And
then they go to the other party, and "Don't tell anyone." And this is
how they run the show. They won the war. They divided the
Ottoman
Empire
, but
at the end, the British came back and told everyone, "Look, this was just a
joke. We won the war, we are in power." And then they went back to the old
plan. They take all that region as a British sphere of influence. They will put
in Arab sheikhs, but they will have British advisors, so-called advisors, at
each government, who will run the economic policy, the military policy, and the
foreign policy. And the sheikh, or the sultan, or the king, he will run
religious affairs, ceremonial issues, things which have to do with very internal
affairs of the country. But the British would run the economy, and all aspects
of life.
But
this did not go fine, because, after World War I, the Arabs, they said, where
are our promises? We need, we want to have our independence. Now it didn't
happen like a Pan-Arabist thing, because the people in
Iraq
, they
told the British, you came here, you told us you're going to liberate us from
the Turkish tyranny, hmm? And when the war ends, you will leave, and we will
have our state, hmm? Nothing is happening-- you want to stay. It's like today:
The neo-cons said, we are going to liberate
Iraq
, and
then we'll leave. This is not part of the plan.
The
same thing happened in
Syria
. The
same thing happened in
Egypt
.
Everywhere, you had a revolt. Even in
Afghanistan
. So,
you had a revolt against the British influence, from
Afghanistan
,
India
,
throughout
Iran
,
Iraq
,
Syria
, all
in 1919 and 1920. And in
Egypt
, which
is the biggest Arab country, you also had a revolt started by nationalist
movements.
Now,
this is the interesting story here. The British realized, because after World
War I, their economy was completely bankrupt. Their military capability--because
it's spread all over the world--they can't have military control. And their
alliances are falling apart. Everybody's saying, "Where's our money? You
promised us this thing, where are our countries?"
So,
they tried to crush these uprisings militarily--very bloody, like in
Iraq
. They
were bombing any village that would go against them, they would send airplanes.
This is Churchill's plan, which is also implemented today. If you don't have
enough soldiers, use air power. Any village which revolts, any village which
does not pay taxes, because they force villages and promise to pay taxes--any
village which does not pay taxes, will get bombed. They go back to the history
of
Iraq
, from
1919, 1920. So, in that revolt, about 10,000 Iraqis were killed in a couple of
months. But the British saw that this is not going to be a viable solution into
the future, especially as their economy does not allow this kind of--.
-
The British Arab Bureau Creates `Pan-Islamism –
So, what they have is this so-called Arab Bureau, in the British Foreign Office,
foreign ministry. They established a special office with people who are experts
in Islamic and Asian cultural and other affairs. And they came up with the idea,
because, since you have nationalist movements in each country, because they
started to be defined--you have Syria, you have Iraq, you have Egypt, you have
Jordan--because you have these, a rise in nationalist movements, who want to
become a modern nation. You know, like
France
, like
the
United
States
, like
everyone else. In order to crush that, because this was a very powerful
sentiment, they needed to get a counter-balance, and that's where they pulled
this so-called pan-Islamic movement from the hat, like, you know, the magicians.
They pulled out this idea. Because they knew that there is something, and there
are a number of people which they had already ruined--they were educating those
people, let's put it this way, and they are prominent persons in the so-called
Islamic reform movement, like Jamal Abdeen al-Afghani, and his students in Egypt,
Mohammad Adha. These were members of Freemasonic lodges in
London
and
France
. And
their idea, already at the end of the 19th Century, was to actually overthrow
the Shah of Iran, overthrow the Sultan in
Turkey
, and
so on and so forth, and they needed help from people in
France
and in
Britain
, in
influential places. And they got into this Freemasonic business, and through
these Freemasonic lodges, they were controlled, actually intellectually and
mentally. And this, for a lot of people, is no secret. They themselves admitted
at a later point, that this was the case. They wrote books, others wrote books
about them.
But the idea for the British is that, ``We need something which is not
defined by a national identity. And the best tool in this aspect, is this
question of pan-Islamism.'' You have an Islamic movement, from
Indonesia
to
Morocco
, which
has no borders. It has no nation-states. It has no defined shape. It's just a
religious movement. And in this case, the British might come to those people and
say, ``We will help you get your Islamic state. We will implement Sharia law.
You can get power. But you promise us to keep control over the economic sectors,
and foreign policy. And you do whatever you like with your religion. You are
free to practice your religion, hm? We are not tyrants, we are not dictators,
you practice the religion you want.''
It's
like in the
Roman
Empire
.
Everybody was allowed to practice their religion. But the economy and military
efforts, foreign policy, was controlled by the imperial power. And through that,
they established the so-called Islamic movement, which was controlled from the
beginning, and the most clear example of that was the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood was the movement that was created in
Egypt
, in
the 1920s, to confront the nationalist independence movement. Because they're
agents: {They had nothing to do with
Egypt
, or
liberating
Egypt
from
the British.} They wanted just to establish an Islamic system. And the British
say, ``Fine, there's no problem. You can be an Islamic, but we will run the
economy and foreign policy.''
The
nationalist movements say ``No, you get out. We run our economy. We run our
military effort. We run our economy.'' And that has been the balance that they
have used since the end of the Second World War, up until the divorce. Because,
when, with the fall of communism, this idea of getting the Islamic movement
against the nationalist movement, it goes in every country. Like, in
Egypt
, is
the best example, with Gamal Abdel Nasser, who made the revolt against the
British Office, and kicked out the British from the
Suez
Canal
. They
set the Islamic, the Muslim Brotherhood, against him. And they created the
tension in the country with which it was impossible for Gamal Abdel Nasser, or
anyone, to control the country.
Now,
they eventually killed Anwar Sadat, in 1981, and still today, they are a very
powerful force. In
Syria
, you
had the Muslim Brotherhood has been in a very powerful situation, and the Syrian
government has been crushing them brutally. That's not something to suggest for
the solution, but their leadership is now in
London
. And
now they are negotiating there, to support British-American-French plans to have
a regime change in
Syria
. So,
they would work with anyone who would give them a promise. It's exactly like the
British gave the promises during the World War.
So,
the danger is that you have so-called Islamic groups who are manipulated.
Sometimes they are in alliance with the Anglo-American intelligence, sometimes
they are in opposition. So, they can be used in any way. In
Afghanistan
they
said, ``Yeah, we go hand in hand with the British and American intelligence, to
crush the Russians. We have the same goal, so we cooperate.'' But with the
Soviet
Union
collapsing, you know, nobody needed them any more in that area. So, the thing
turned into, how do you use these Islamic now-militant movements, because they
were not that militant before the Afghanistan jihad, but how do you use them now
to destabilize these regimes? And they have been, in the whole 1990s, used in
Egypt
, in
Algeria
, and
in other countries, to destabilize the national governments.
But
now, with this clash of civilization idea, once again, they are a perfect tool.
Because they know how these people would react. And they know what their
objectives are. So, therefore, this idea of cultural warfare, is to--and this is
the art which the British are masters of today, because they have practiced it
for 200 years: How do you get a reaction from a group, or a number of groups,
exactly as you want it? You can almost put it in the computer. If you do this,
they will do that. Like these cartoons. Anybody who knows anything would know
that this would provoke a storm in the Islamic world. And they know that. And
that's the reason they did it. They wanted this crisis. But they wanted this
crisis, not simply because they hate Islam, or they hate Muhammad--they don't
give a damn about Islam, or Muhammad, or even Christianity. They think they are,
as like in the old empires, like the Babylonian and Persian Empires,
Roman
Empire
: ``We
are the elite, we run the masses of cattle, of slaves. We are in power here. We
can choose for them the kind of religion they can worship. We can control their
affairs. But it is we who are in control.''
And
that's how the game runs.
- Do You Want To Make History? -
Now,
they have the problem. Because the modern nation-state is not, like,
specifically, the United States--and this is the irony with which a lot of
people have a difficulty, because what this oligarchy, these elites, are most
terrified of: is, if the United States goes back to this idea of being a
sovereign republic. With the idea, also, of the individual as being a sovereign
individual, with God-given rights and freedoms. And in that context, what that
implies for the economic policy, because if you have that idea of the individual,
if you have a constitution which is based on that idea, then, who is running the
economy? Is it the interest of the elite? The bankers, and the priesthood, and
the mass media, who are the priests of today? Or is it the general welfare of
the nation? Who will control the money? Who will control the raw materials? Is
it the hedge funds, and the private companies? Or is it that these are the
assets of nations, that they need these assets for their development?
And
in the American situation, that's why the fight in the
United
States
is so
important, is that the
United
States
does
have that constitutional system. Now the Bush Administration and these neo-cons,
their big enemy is the United States of America. They want to destroy the United
States as a sovereign nation. They want to tear down the American Constitution,
because it's dangerous. Because it says all people are equal, and they have
God-given rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And
this is dangerous, because the oligarchs cannot control a nation, where you have
individuals with that identity. People who are sovereign. People who demand that
their nation protect their interests, that promotes the general welfare for
themselves, and the coming generation. That means, who controls the economy, who
controls the credit, who controls the money, who has the right to issue money.
Is it the banks, or the sovereign government, which is elected by the people?
That is what the fight is about. And they are terrified if the United
States turns around. If you overthrow Cheney and Bush, and then you have a
leadership in the United States which says, "We have to follow and go back
to our Constitution. It's the best Constitution, more than European civilization
has created. We have to go back and implement that. And we can use that, also
internationally, by getting these kinds of agreements with other nations, to
build the world, to develop the whole planet!"
Now,
no private bank will accept this plan. ``It costs too much money. And it's bad
for the environment. We don't have money for this. The IMF says, you know, we
don't. Maastricht will tell the Europeans, you know, you can't borrow money for
these things, because you have to have a 3% limit on your budget deficit. You
cannot borrow money to build railways, water projects.''
So
instead of that the nation itself says: ``We need these things. We have to
create credit, so-called money, to finance these projects,'' the bankers say
``no.'' ``It's {we} who decide what will be built, and what will not be built,
because we own the money. We have the raw materials. We have these private
companies, oil companies, steel companies. And we decide what will be built, and
what will not be built.'' And the danger is, for them, for this oligarchical
elite, and their priesthood, is, if you get a movement around the world, where
nations say, like Denmark, or the government, the people in Denmark and their
government, say, ``This economic policy, this free trade and globalization
doesn't work. We have to take control of our economy. And therefore, we have to
change the process of economic policy making that we have had, at least since
the 1970s, but especially, for the EU, since the 1990s.''
That
is the battle. And cultural warfare is used, to detract from the real issue. The
real issue is the economy: who controls the world economy. That's the real issue.
But they can keep people busy, killing each other, for religious and cultural
reasons, so they can come out on top of the world economy, of the money, the raw
materials, and the army. And they say, this is enough for us to control the
world. Let the Muslims and the Europeans kill each other. We control. They have
strong armies, they have big banks, and so on.
So,
for us to be able to intervene in this crisis, is to understand this idea of
cultural warfare, history, how history was shaped, what are the ideas which
shaped history. It's not simply the events; you can read all the details about
that. But what is your idea about yourself? Who are you? Are you somebody who is
in history, or are you just passing by this planet, by mistake? Like the
existential problem: ``I'm just here, nobody told me to come here. My mother and
father didn't ask me if I wanted to be here or not. Why did you bring me here?
This world is full of wars and crises, and natural disasters. I don't want to be
here!''
Or
are you somebody who's here for a purpose? That's the question of history. Are
you part of history? Do you want to make history, or are you just a victim of
history? And this is how we can get Denmark out of this crisis. We can become
historical individuals. Your nation is counting on you. Do something, and in
order to be able to do something, you have to know something about yourself, who
are you, and history, because we are part of world history. And this is what our
friends here in Denmark have been fighting to get this message to the Danish
people. As we do in Sweden, we do in the United States, and in Germany. So, you
can better understand these events, and your role, if you get a sense of
universal history. And we are here to help in that problem.
Article on
the Sykes-Picot agreements.