COLONIZATIONS
AND THEIR CLASH WITH CIVILIZATIONS
Dr. Firooz Emamy
COLONIZATIONS AND THEIR CLASH WITH CIVILIZATIONS Copyright © 2022 by Firooz Emamy
All rights reserved. Printed in Australia. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, organizations, places, events, and incidents either are the product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Except for the name of persons where exactly the same as names of real persons, any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental.
Book and Cover design by the author
ISBN: 978-1-943093-30-4
Second Edition: 2020
Note: As some of the predictions of the first edition (i.e. predicting SA becoming involved in a direct war shortly) have happened, a copy of the first intact edition is left on www.militarizations.blogspot.com
To: My Father and also in memory of Father of Modern Australia,
Gough Whitlam
CONTENTS
COLONIZATIONS AND THEIR CLASH WITH CIVILIZATIONS
CONTENTS
1 Colonizations and Their Clash with Civilizations
2 Mafia of Media and the
3 Military- Intelligence- Industrial Complex: MICix
4 Towards Theory of Feministic Social Evolution: Feminine Politics
5 Shi'ites: How Ali Shariati distorted history
6 Protocols of Military-Intelligence-Industrial Complex
Acknowledgments
About the Author
CHAPTER
1
Colonizations
and Their Clash With Civilizations
I |
am nestled in the kitchen, savoring my drink while pondering "the man" and his book. It's curious to me why someone so renowned in the intellectual and academic world, and not even British, has crafted a work that feels so commonplace. Perhaps that's what inspired President Khatami [1]to strive for a more ideal vision of how "civilizations" might coexist in his own writings.
In his work, *Clash of Civilizations* [2], Huntington asserts that Iran stands out as the only Muslim nation that has experienced a persistent decline in fundamentalism over the past three decades. This insight is likely to resonate with many Iranians. Conversely, the broader Arab world appears to be increasingly antagonistic towards the West, alongside a growing trend of fundamentalism among the Arab populace.
Aside from the central argument regarding the cultural and religious divide as the foundation for alliances and conflicts, the following sections of the book, supplemented by numerous graphs, are poorly executed, leading one to believe that even President Khatami might perceive himself as capable of improving upon them.
It is conceivable that President Khatami's understanding of the book was limited to its title. When he sought a name for his “bright new idea,” he might have interpreted Huntington’s focus as solely on the "clash," leading him to propose the concept of "dialogue" as a corrective. A glance at the amusing graphs created by Mr. Huntington, which mimic the style of an engineering or scientific paper, reveals that the work centers on the probabilities of conflict and cooperation among various “civilizations.” Huntington presents diagrams outlining which civilizations are more inclined to form alliances and which are more prone to confrontations.
A significant element of Huntington's book is the acknowledgment of religion's role in delineating the fault lines between various "civilizations" and their interactions. Similar to many British historians, missionaries, and Middle East experts, he demonstrates a degree of awareness regarding the divisions among branches of Islam. However, he appears insufficiently interested in exploring the fault lines within different branches of Christianity. This oversight is crucial and warrants further examination, as it is essential for a comprehensive analysis of cultural interactions. Given his background, the author intends to provide a deeper understanding of specific aspects concerning the divide between Shia and Sunni Islam.
When I first encountered the term "Islamist" in the media as a substitute for religious fundamentalists or terrorists, I initially did not find it troubling. While some might argue that this constitutes a form of religious profiling, I perceived it as a means to facilitate broader discussions. It seemed to create an environment where it became acceptable to examine evangelicals, as well as the influence of religious cults and various branches of other faiths, alongside their interconnected secret societies in the propagation of religious fundamentalism. I will elaborate on why I believe the impact of above mentioned subcultures or religious cults may be far more damaging than that of their associated secret societies, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or, more generally, "Islamists." This will be presented as “Pyramid of terror” in next chapters.
The unbearable slowness of history
A long time ago, in a critique I authored, I took issue with Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis [3] in a somewhat dismissive manner. It is evident that Fukuyama possesses a deeper insight compared to his mentor, Samuel Huntington, who champions the notion of a "clash of civilizations" as a more compelling framework. Notably, Fukuyama's argument pertains to an evolutionary trajectory in historical progression, a concept paralleled in chapter 4, "Towards a Theory of Feministic Social Evolution." This distinction is significant, as it positions Fukuyama in opposition to Neoconservatives, who remain entrenched in the belief in revolutionary change.
This author contends that Fukuyama was correct in predicting that the evolutionary trajectory of history would eventually culminate in a stable state characterized by genuine liberal democracy. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Fukuyama may have been overly optimistic in proclaiming that we had arrived at "the end of history." As explored in this book, the liberal democracies we observe today are predominantly superficial, increasingly undermined by the introduction of complex protocols that erode the fundamental principles of liberal democracy. The author will argue (see Chapter 4) that for history to achieve its endpoint, it must first progress in a meaningful evolutionary fashion. Although such progress is occurring, the pace is painfully slow—captured in the phrase "The Unbearable Slowness of History." This sluggishness is understandable given the evolve nature of change. Often, those manipulating the values of liberal democracy employ both ancient tactics and sophisticated technological tools to impede or even reverse this evolutionary process. Notably, Fukuyama later revised his stance, as evidenced by his statements during the Brexit crisis in 2016, where he acknowledged that liberal democracies could regress. However, he may still overlook the reality that those "liberal democracies" that exhibit such regression are likely mere facades of true liberal democracy.
In other sections of this book, particularly in chapter 3, we will examine how a small region in Western Europe, referred to by the author as “fascist Europe,” has effectively repurposed the colonial-era protocols into contemporary forms. This region has harnessed the Protestant philosophical framework of Germany to cultivate both far-right and far-left ideologies of the 20th century, subsequently establishing protocols for creating superficial liberal democracies globally. The author will examine a novel thesis concerning WWII and the theo-cultural relationships between Germany and the UK based on Huntington’s theory, also highlighting that the majority of nations that either embraced Germans or allied with them possessed colonial histories, whereas the only two countries that engaged in significant conflict with Germany (Russia and US) were both anti-colonial, albeit through distinct approaches.
Civilizations and Militarizations
The Catholic branch of Christianity traces its lineage back to Roman civilization, which boasts a remarkable historical legacy. Similarly, the Orthodox tradition originates from ancient Greece, another civilization known for its brilliance. However, despite any goodwill towards the British, one struggles to identify a significant and authentic "civilization" at the roots of the Protestant subculture. Instead, what emerges is a prominent legacy tied to the militaristic history of the British Empire, alongside the memory of once possessing the world's most formidable navy. When investigating the historical origins of the "cult of power," one may encounter intriguing details about a king who established a new cult primarily to further his own womanizing ambitions.
What distinctly sets the English apart is the deep-rooted "conservatism" entrenched in their history. Living on an island where the majority of interactions were with white, Protestant, English-speaking individuals has shaped a unique societal fabric. This environment has also inspired states that show little regard for the "separation of church and state," exemplified by the monarchy serving as the head of state. In stark contrast, Catholics have achieved a separation between the Vatican and Rome. While the head of the Protestant church was a monarch, Catholicism’s Roman roots proudly trace back to an ancient "Republic." Just as the French championed democracy globally, the Romans introduced the concept of the "Republic."
Furthermore, while the Roman civilization was rooted in a Republic, Greek civilization leaned towards an "oligarchy of intellectuals." Unfortunately for the British and their even more unfortunate colonies, their system relied on a regressive "Royal" framework that does not even have a “constitution “. Compounding this issue was a theocratic royal system that intertwined religion and politics, a mix that they further exported around the world, including to Iran, as will be discussed in this book.
There is a significant distinction between "military" engineers and "civil" engineers. I must admit that my first awareness of the philosophy behind "civil engineering" came from a British academic. The role of civil engineers is to construct and build, while military engineers focus on deconstruction or destruction. This distinction leads me to label societies that derive their strength primarily from militarism as "Militarizations," in contrast to those that are rooted in the rich "civilizations" of the ancient world.
Militarizations are not defined or constrained by national boundaries. Their empire, a legacy from colonial times, extends across all English-speaking countries except US, with one notable example : the United Kingdom. I argue that the UK fully embodies the concept of Militarization throughout its recent history. While numerous countries possess military industries and some engage in the sale of weapons, this alone does not categorize them as Militarizations.
For instance, the United States, as a multicultural society, boasts intellectuals who tackle the production and sale of weapons with a more civilized perspective. The issue of the military-industrial complex (MIC) was notably raised by a clever and courageous American president. Other significant arms manufacturers, such as the French and Russians, stem from civilizations rich in art and literature, which prevents their classification as Militarizations. Most European nations possess a rich heritage in art and philosophy. In contrast, the British have historically lacked the same depth as the French, Germans, Russians, Italians, and others in these areas. The French and Russians excelled in literature, while the Germans made significant contributions to philosophy and music, and the Italians were renowned for their achievements in art and architecture. Meanwhile, the British have primarily focused on their naval power and militarization.
It’s important to note that all great civilizations of the ancient world maintained strong militaries and engaged in warfare. We should have profound respect for the American and Australian heroes who played a role in overthrowing dictators such as Hitler or Saddam Hussein.
The issues of political fascism and religious fundamentalism, particularly among British right-wing Protestant fundamentalists—whom I refer to as Anglo-fascists—along with the establishment of a corrupt core within the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), encompassing police, defense, and royal family members, have led to the UK being seen as a primary supporter of terrorism and fundamentalism globally. I will explain my belief that nearly every act of terrorism attributed to "Iranians" and their "proxies" is, in fact, linked to individuals who had direct or indirect connections with the British MIC and were embedded within these proxy groups.
The reality is that secret societies in the UK have a certain degree of awareness or connection with Muslim fundamentalist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded by Mr. Al-Banna, whose name translates to "MASON" in Arabic.
Nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Additionally, a Saudi royal sympathetic to their cause was deceived and implicated by the British Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) using a strategy for manipulating influential political figures through false terrorism accusations, akin to the case with President Rafsanjani’s alleged involvement in the AMIA bombing. This royal had links to the hijackers of the World Trade Center. While one might be inclined to associate these events with the Saudis, it is important to note that this person also had significant connections to the British MIC. This author’s provocative theory suggests that 9/11 may have been orchestrated to completely undermine U.S.-Saudi arms deals, benefiting the British MIC. Saudi Arabia is committing a significant error by perpetuating its arms agreements with the British military-industrial complex, thereby subjecting itself to a potentially devastating challenge from the Masonic Muslim Brotherhood, which may eventually manifest as the fake “Republic of Arabia”.
I will later elaborate on the compelling evidence supporting the theory of connections between the British MIC and those involved in some of the most heinous terrorist acts, including the AMIA bombings and 9/11.
The UK's primary industries have revolved around financial services, while many other European nations actively focus on constructing, creating, and producing tangible goods that contribute positively to society rather than engaging in violence. This situation reminds me of a tale about a strong but ignorant individual who, in his youth, robbed the vulnerable, then channeled those ill-gotten gains into opium trading, gaining even more wealth (read about opium wars between the British and Chinese). As he aged, he merely lent out his stolen money for interest, occasionally using his financial clout to undermine neighbors of differing faiths. Is it merely coincidental that several European countries experiencing significant financial difficulties happen to be predominantly Catholic or Orthodox? Or, it is a case of economic terrorism?
Having the monarch serve as the head of the church can be detrimental to a society marked by "militarization." As noted, Italy, as the successor to Roman civilization, addressed this challenge by establishing the Vatican as a separate entity. The separation of church and state, or a secular government, is crucial; failure to achieve this often leads to a political system tainted by religious fundamentalism, which in turn neglects the rights of minorities.
Isn't it due to the dangerous blend of politics and evangelicalism that some corrupt members of the Military-Industrial Complex view themselves as “Knights Templars” or “crusaders of a new age,” striving to instigate new “holy” wars? This intertwining may very well be a root cause of Islamophobia and "leftophobia," with the MIC attempting to embellish documents to rationalize the aggression against various Muslim nations.
From the outset, UK intelligence agencies were identified by the letters M and I (Military Intelligence). In the context of the UK, corruption isn't merely a normal occurrence; it's a designed and systematic issue. The actions of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) are often viewed as a "service" to the country, leading to a troubling reality where the British MIC has become a hub for falsifying documents and manufacturing misleading "intelligence" used to justify wars.
This situation results in the tragic loss of our youth to conflicts that have nothing to do with them. At the core of this problem lies a severe lack of morality, compounded by a historic absence of genuine civilizational roots to temper militarism. The British attempt to elevate trivial artifacts over the rich legacies of Egyptian, Roman, Greek, and Persian civilizations fails to establish the moral and civilized framework necessary to rein in reckless militarization and its relentless machinery of war.
Power of hypothesis and The structure of the current book
A reader may observe that some of the hypotheses presented in this work are not accompanied by definitive proof. This is intentional. In this book, hypotheses are not employed merely as propositions to be verified or falsified through conventional academic methodologies. Rather, they serve as instruments of conceptual exploration—particularly within domains where information is deliberately concealed or remains inaccessible, such as intelligence operations or covert geopolitical strategies. The power of a hypothesis lies in its capacity to open up new interpretive frameworks, guide lines of inquiry, and generate insight—even in the absence of verifiable evidence. In this context, hypotheses function as tools of intellectual resistance, challenging prevailing narratives and proposing alternative ways of understanding the complex and often opaque structures of power. The author invites readers to consider parallels with advanced engineering methodologies, particularly in fields such as simulation and optimization[4], where the most sophisticated solutions often emerge from systematically feeding analytical models with numerous hypotheses. These hypotheses are then tested iteratively, with the most viable ones selected based on how well they align with observed or simulated outcomes. In this context, the formulation of the right hypothesis is not a peripheral step but rather the cornerstone of the entire problem-solving process. The author maintains that the essence of the scientific method lies, above all, in the generation of meaningful and insightful hypotheses—an act that fundamentally drives inquiry, discovery, and innovation
Before delving into the content, it is important to clarify the unconventional structure of this book. Its form is, in part, shaped by my personal experiences with certain self-styled "academic" figures I encountered at a university in Australia. Many of these individuals, educated in the United Kingdom, appeared to function as symbols of systemic corruption within the academic establishment. Some held influential positions and used their authority to appoint family members and close associates as lecturers, senior lecturers, and administrative staff—effectively transforming academic departments into tightly controlled networks resembling secret societies.
Although I hold a Ph.D. and come from an academic background, these experiences led to a growing disillusionment with the academic system—particularly within the social sciences. I developed what could be described as an intellectual aversion to certain academic conventions, including the rigid referencing practices common in the social sciences. These methods, modeled after those in engineering and the hard sciences, often cite sources not as evidence but as ideological signposts—references that sometimes merely reflect alternative viewpoints, yet are presented with the same authority as empirically grounded research.
In writing this book, I chose to avoid replicating this approach. Instead of directing readers to specific sources that may themselves reflect biased or ideologically loaded positions, I prefer to suggest keywords and topics for readers to explore independently. In the digital age, the abundance of accessible information allows individuals to conduct their own investigations. This method reflects a commitment to intellectual autonomy and a resistance to what I perceive as a form of informational manipulation—akin to the ideological influence wielded by contemporary media conglomerates. With the exception of Chapter 4—which was originally written with the intent of submission to so-called scientific journals (and whose rejection becomes self-explanatory upon reading)—the use of references throughout this book has been deliberately minimized.
In Chapter 3, I provide a detailed explanation of the reasoning underlying the aforementioned summaries by analyzing a specific British defense company whose business model bears a striking resemblance to the thematic elements of Charlie Chaplin’s film The Kid. Within this chapter, I argue—drawing upon a range of examples—that segments of the military-industrial complex (MIC) have established connections with fundamentalist religious groups and terrorist organizations, particularly within Iran. I further contend that the MIC has, in certain instances, indirectly influenced these groups toward engaging in acts of terrorism, with the potential to provoke widespread conflict or instability, thereby creating conditions conducive to increased arms sales. The chapter also examines a complex case in which the British MIC effectively acquired Australia’s sole major defense contractor through practices that appear ethically questionable and potentially corrupt.
In Chapter 5, I address the broader theme of the "clash of civilizations" versus the "dialogue between civilizations," with a specific focus on the intellectual legacy of Ali Shariati. I critically examine how Shariati distorted historical narratives and the originally nonviolent foundations of Shia Islam to support a politicized and confrontational worldview. The chapter explores the ways in which Shia civilization can be delineated in relation to other major global civilizations and assesses the conditions under which conflict or cooperation is likely to emerge. Furthermore, I argue that liberal democracy aligns more closely with the cultural and historical trajectory of Shia Iranians than the fabricated socialist framework that Shariati attempted to impose upon them.
In the final chapter, I share aspects of my personal experiences as a target of the British Military-Intelligence-Industrial Complex, disclosing selected protocols and practices with the hope that this information may assist and inform future individuals who find themselves victimised by what I refer to as the MICix. Additionally, some sections of this book present hypotheses related to intelligence and security matters, developed through the author's personal experiences as their victim as well as proprietary analytical methods. Due to the sensitive nature of these topics, it was neither feasible nor appropriate to include explicit references or detailed methodological explanations. This decision was made in order to safeguard the author, the methods employed, and any individuals potentially affected by the dissemination of such information.
References
1. Mohammad Khatami, "Dialogue Among Civilizations" in Persian:
گفتگوی تمدنها. مؤلف: سید محمد خاتمی. ناشر: انتشارات طرح نو. نوبت چاپ: اول (1380)
2. Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?’, Foreign Affairs,
72, no.3 (1993): 22-49.
2.
3. Francis Fukuyama, the end of history and the last man New York:
Free Press, 1992
4. Firooz E Farvashany, “Parametric Studies on Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls: An Engineering Response to Einstein’s Riddle?”, ACI Structural Journal, V.114, No.5, September-October 2017, pp 1099-1108
Overflow and notes:
Having said all of these, I know there are a lot of very intelligent and moral guys in the UK (mostly on the left side of politics) and I always say that I am not that uncivilized to include a whole nation in an "axis of evil" list. But if I was, I would for sure include the UK. And why as a republican Australian I don't want it for them? I don't believe in revolutions and that will become a disaster for Saudi Arabia if it happens. They needed to deal with infiltrations of British MIC before being caught up in a direct war or a revolution. While writing the first edition I had this prediction and the Yemen war hadn't started yet. I will write about the corrupt deals of the MIC cult inside Iran before the revolution when a kind of apartheid system was in control of arms deals and why I believe this cult of power and the arms deals had a role in both the revolution and the Iraq-Iran war.
