A bunch of hypotheses with exchange of accusations about the massacre in Moscow; but it’s a hysterical fanaticism that leads nowhere.
Let’s try to reason on concrete bases.
What do we know about terrorism, which we have known massively in Italy?
First of all, the interpretations are regularly false.
It is not true that terrorism aims to establish the conditions for a coup because no coup has ever been preceded by terrorism.
It is also not true that it destabilizes a government or a power system because all the massacres have increased support for the current government, or at least for the State, always strengthening its exceptional powers.
Therefore, if the theories suggesting that state apparatuses are always behind Western attacks are true, we must automatically conclude that the Moscow massacre is the work of the Russian services.
But these theories are biased because terrorism is also part of internal struggles, oblique wars, stock market operations, and, as a psychotic addition, in human sacrifices carried out by religious fundamentalists, whether they are Protestant, Israeli, Islamic, or Masonic: religious anyway.
That there are internal struggles in Russia is clear, and it is more than plausible that some anomalies of the security services in this circumstance may suggest their complicity, or at least a laissez-faire attitude, as in Israel on October 7th.
But this still does not allow us to understand the motive behind the attack or, above all, to establish what its consequences will be.
WHAT WE CAN DECIPHER
The sad truth is that the matrix of terrorist acts matters only to a certain extent; it is more important to unravel, as much as possible, the nebula of the instigators. But this has more academic value than anything else because, in the end, what matters is the political management of the massacres, which is not the responsibility of those who committed them but of those who must guide their continuation.
We can assert without much hesitation that, at the level of the perpetrators, the constant is the heterotelism of the ends, meaning that the result is never what the terrorists imagine.
We do not know if this can also apply at the level of the direct instigators, but it is certain that the post-attack managers act as planned by the planners, wherever they are and wherever they are located.
It is also a constant that these terrorists are manipulated, deceived, and ultimately sacrificed, perhaps buried in unknown places.
What counts, in terrorism, is therefore what the puppeteers want to achieve and what the post-massacre disputes are, the only ones that give us a decent view of what happens behind the scenes.
On the Moscow massacre, we have witnessed different narratives from the Russian apparatuses that refer to internal divisions on geopolitical and geoeconomic orientations.
Ukraine fits into this perspective only: that the massacre was determined by that conflict makes no sense. Neither the Americans (who had, moreover, warned the Russians of the threat) nor the Ukrainians could have thought that this would “destabilize” Moscow instead of further stabilizing it.
Not even the Russians needed to shoot their own crowd to maintain consensus for their imperialistic revival.
At most, one could have imagined a Russo-American agreement to blame Kiev and thus induce allies to drop Ukraine.
But this is not what the first versions from the FSB and the Americans currently suggest.
So, what then?
Let’s take other massacres as an example, maybe they can help us reason.
THER MASSACRES TO GET ORIENTATION FROM
The one in Bologna (1980) was part of an oblique war concerning Italy’s Mediterranean policy and nuclear armament to Iraq. At the same time, there was an internal conflict between power groups and Masonic lodges, at the peak of the advancing P2 (Propaganda Due) movement which was thus halted.
The one on rue Copernic in Paris (1980) was not only for the same reason (France and Italy were with Iraq and were targets of the Israelis) but also served to reset the presidential nominations and freeze the Rothschild’s opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
The one in Madrid (2004) was part of a Hispano-British war over influences in the Middle East, so much so that the terrorists enjoyed the support of ETA and Morocco (both allies of the British); the massacre curbed their ambitions, with a change in the leadership of the apparatuses.
The Christmas Massacre in Italy (1984), although Mafia-related, also tried to change the leadership of the Italian apparatuses by appointing new P2 members – supported by the PCI (Italian Communist Party)! – something that our Prime Minster, Craxi, refused to do.
It is difficult, from the data at our disposal, to decipher the London massacre (2005) where the involvement of the services is clear. But there, discretion is absolute, and therefore, one can only guess; and almost certainly, one doesn’t get it right.
Can one guess about Russia? Do more leaks come out there than around the City?
THE JUNEPRAY IN WHICH MOSCOW MOVES
What are Moscow’s dirty wars?
There are several, but not so much against “the West” with which there is instead a kind of armed charade. They take place in Eurasia (understood as the so-called Eurasian zone and not the sum of the two continents), in the Middle East, and in Africa.
Several Sunni countries, China, and Turkey are involved, more or less covertly.
As suggested by the claim of ISIS-K, whoever drafted it, they extend to the disputes fought on the margins of the Abraham Accords and the Chinese attempt to reconcile Iranians and Saudis and, conversely, on the slaughter in Gaza that has put Russian credibility in the area in serious political difficulties.
However, they do not involve Israel which has very close relations with Russia, not only because Moscow supplies it with oil and the Russian community there is numerous and powerful, but also because Tel Aviv has refused to arm Ukraine and to join the sanctions. As both governments never tire of repeating, the two countries get along well.
Internal struggles are more than one, but what matters most is that alongside them there is an opposition, consistently reported by the Kremlin’s think tanks and by the Russian press itself, about international priorities that mutually exclude each other.
We will see in the future and understand, not so much the matrix of the massacre, but who will have capitalized on it and how.
Given that – with all due respect to anyone who wish imagine transparent and correct Russian services – at those levels, everyone is cynical, disloyal, dishonest, and unscrupulous.
We will only understand this partially because we are used to reasoning with simplistic and reassuring schemes.
THE INTERNATIONAL OF THE INITIATES
This prevents us from understanding how some initiated environments, which are those that manage more or less everywhere services and terrorism, represent in fact the true International.
More supportive among themselves and contemptuous of the masses, both their own and others, than bitter mutual enemies. To the point of exchanging information and collaboration and frequenting “neutral” places of meeting and organization that correspond to exclusive circles of different nature.
These manage to mediate and articulate the contradictions of a system that is at the same time “united and divided”, in a world based on “interdependence” and “multi-alignment”.
This leads to confrontations between interests and groups at one level, and then, at a higher level, to determine the differences in shares in geopolitics between different powers and civilizations.
This is the only level that, due to the consequences and potentialities, should interest us.
But then everything is absorbed and rebalanced in that metapolitical sphere which, with a very summary definition, has been defined as “globalism”. Some define it as a “system” and others identify it in conspiracies (like Agenda 2030) and, from some illogical speculation, reduce it to “the West”, thus senselessly angelizing the sewers of others.
Dog does not eat dog, and whoever is behind the Moscow massacre will have nothing to fear from either the Russian services or the “enemies”. Let’s come to terms with this.
Do we surrender to all this? No! We respond with the “Forest Passage”, which must be understood as ideal self-sufficiency and liberation from political dependencies, but also as conceptual nourishment and not at all as a hysterical escape into the ghetto.
One must simultaneously “bring the forest into the city” to operate around oneself -deconditioned- trying to favor all the conditions that can lead to autonomy and power in one’s own civilization and transpose the inner Empire there as an element of political and spiritual rectification.
Never forgetting that, in every field, including the one for which we fight, there is a solid intertwining of gangsterism and bloody internationalist fanaticism that binds together all the initiated minorities that won the Second World War.
A “detail” that too many tend to ignore or forget, saying – for some psychotic reason – that times have changed.
Instead, only they have changed.
