New Categories to the Old World
The political-military polarization in the form of "East-West" in the world during the Cold War was ideological in nature based on liberal and communist systems. However, the opposition intellectual movement, which started on the communist side many years ago, had become widely accepted. That opposition was even raising its voice to the face of Mikhail Gorbachev, who became the Secretary General of the USSR in 1985. Thereupon, Gorbachev's proposal for a new order to the world and counter-opinions from the United States began. Another interesting aspect of the matter was that those views were served to the world public opinion by being published in a book. It was quite an open bargain. Gorbachev initiated the exchange of views with the books.
Gorbachev announced that he had launched “Glasnost and Perestroika (Openness and Reconstruction)” with his book "Glasnost – What Do I Really Want" and that he would democratize the system in a Western sense. The Secretary General, who did not neglect to give assurances to the Jews within his borders, did not only talk about democratization in his book, but also about integration with Europe with the phrase “our home in Europe”. He also talks about a Europe “from the Atlantic to the Urals”, signaling the exclusion of the Muslim peoples east of the Urals in the USSR and the USA in NATO; he argued that integration would be “an extremely high historical and cultural category in the spiritual sense” .
The dominant circles in the USA, which is seen as the “leader of the free world”, felt uneasy about this situation. After Gorbachev's announcements, political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the former vice presidents of the USA, wrote a book called “The Grand Failure”. Brzezinski accepted the participation of the Eastern European countries, which were included in the Warsaw Pact, to the European Community, provided that they fulfilled certain conditions. He suggested that the countries of the USSR should gather together with Russia under the name of “Eurasian Republics Union”, without failing even one of them .
When the Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1989, an article by US political scientist Francis Fukuyama entitled “The End of History?” was published. In 1990, the communist system completely collapsed, and in 1991 the USSR dissolved. Fukuyama also published his thesis, based on the views of Hegel and Kojéve, in a book. However, instead of the hesitant title of “End of History?” in his article, he used the more precise title of “The End of History and the Last Man” in his book. The result he declared was the victory of capitalism with a “Protestant morality” .
That statement was construed as declaring victory for the US-led liberal economy, but it could also mean that there was no longer an enemy to fight, but that the United States had no significance in the international arena. That is why it got some reactions within the USA. The most effective reaction came from Richard Nixon, one of the former presidents of the USA. Nixon, in his book “Seize the Moment - America's Challenge in a One‑superpower” published in 1992, said that the USA had more powers to fight in the world. Nixon, who counts the underdeveloped countries with nuclear weapons and religious radicals in the Muslim world, among the groups that will be fought if necessary; Emphasizing the growth rate of the Muslim population, he states that there are two values America cannot give up in the Middle East, and shows one of them as Israel and the other as oil; he also stated that no US president and member of Congress could accept the destruction of the state of Israel. Saying that no state can replace America in terms of leadership, in terms of such principles and military-economic power; since the USA was isolated, it was strongly opposed to Gorbachev's “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” project and argued that America should continue to lead the world .
Another US political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington, in his article titled “Clash of Civilizations?”, suggested that there would be a clash of civilizations from now on as a “prediction”(!). He stated that the poles in that conflict would be “the West and non-Westerners”. Huntington also proposed the inclusion of Orthodox Christians, who had not been part of the Western alliance until then, but said he had some hesitations for the Russians. On the other hand, he defined the segment that he defined as the opposite party as “Islamic-Confucian civilization” . As can be seen, the political classification in this idea is purely religious.
After all, in Nixon's statements, by implication, and in Huntington's statement, clearly, the Islamic world was mentioned as a potential danger or even an enemy. But only verbal suggestion was not enough for persuasion. It was not enough for terrorist organizations such as the Boko Haram and ISIS to appear in the media as killing machines in the Islamic geography. According to social psychology, which is already a branch of science, other factors were needed.
A Social Psychology Experiment
Even in the twentieth century, the prevailing racist attitude in the United States included the Chinese among the most hated (note that Huntington's thesis on civilizations in conflict, cited above, counts the "Confucian" civilization alongside "Islam"). In 1934, an American researcher named LaPiere took a young Chinese couple with him on a trip to all the states. During that trip, they entered 66 hotels and 184 restaurants. Only one of these businesses did not let them in. In others, they did not encounter behavior that can be considered unpleasant. The same researcher decides to visit the same businesses again, taking the same couple with him six months later. This time, he wrote a letter to each of those businesses without stating their previous visit. What he said in his letter consisted of announcing their arrival with a Chinese family and requesting a reservation. Those businesses display an attitude contrary to their previous positive behaviors: 92% gave a definite rejection answer, 7% do not answer, only 1% made a reservation with a positive answer .
Here is the result: The feeling of hatred in social psychology is not manifested in every situation. A stimulation is needed that will reveal the feeling of hatred. The "Chinese family" description that LaPiere mentioned in his reservation request did that job.
It is well known that a significant part of the West also hates Muslims. The attacks carried out on September 11, 2001, in the United States, on March 11, 2004 in Madrid, in London on July 5, 2005, which were attributed to some Muslims, and the attacks carried out in France on January 7, 2015, which were obviously carried out by some Muslims, enabled that hatred to be attributed to wider masses. At least it has raised concern among Muslims about the presence of some violent/terrorist-preferred groups such as al-Nusra, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, ISIS. Because it was different to watch their murders in the Islamic world (perhaps with some satisfaction) from the media, and it was different to see them directly in the Christian society.
The first of the above-mentioned terrorist incidents increased the sensitivity of the religious and irreligious masses in the USA and the others in Europe. Especially in EU countries, where some analysts say that there is a strong possibility of disintegration, shouting slogans and carrying banners such as “We are Europe” is enough to show who benefited from those actions.
On the other hand, there was an inconsistency in the international official protest march against terrorism in Paris on January 11, 2015 with the theme of “Freedom of expression and brotherhood”. The correct theme should have been “respect to the Sacred and brotherhood”. What is it if it is not inconsistent to consider the lack of respect or even ridicule of a society's sacredness as "freedom of expression", and then talk about brotherhood with that society?
For the Muslims…
Undoubtedly, someone's caricature of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is a "freedom of expression" for Muslims to react to. But the meddlesomeness of a few tactless people could not have been a basis for terror to the extent that it would terrify the whole people.
Blasphemy and terrorism. Both are products of modernity.
Which one is worse?
It's not possible to acquit one, not the other. Especially as the great scholar Nasreddin Hodja said to both sides, “You are right, too”, it is impossible to show the right side of both parties in a way that flatters the pride of both parties, and to make them give up on the wrong side. Because both are totally wrong.
The most reasonable thing was that civilized non-governmental organizations in the Muslim world published protest messages in magazines like that, placed advertisements in newspapers, called on the Western people to show solidarity in that direction, and applied to official and unofficial authorities and insisted on respect for the sacred. With those activities, a very important public support could be obtained in the West. Even though there was no such activity, there were also Westerners who condemned the "oppressed" magazine and criticized the banners in the marches after the incident. One of them is New York Times writer David Brooks. During the marches, banners "I am Charlie" were carried, referring to the name of Charlie Hebdo magazine. In his article on January 9, Brooks said, "I am not Charlie Hebdo," and defended "measures of respect and civilization against the magazine's offensive sense of humor" .
This article is not defending the thesis that Western intelligence agencies have organized some conspiracies. But the “manipulating events” activities announced by a former CIA director in our article examining the social psychology of the Middle East should, of course, also make you think about such conspiracies. The reason for emphasizing both meanings with expressions such as "to do/to have it done" in the article is that there are serious doubts in that direction.
As it can be understood from its title and content, this article actually states that the events experienced with the social psychologies created will provide the results desired by influential figures in Western politics, especially the USA, such as Brzezinski, Nixon, Huntington and Fukuyama, and Putin, the most important leader of the Commonwealth of Independent States. As a matter of fact, Putin put forward the "Eurasian Union" structure, which Brzezinski recommended -as mentioned above- in his book, as if it were his own idea, and he also found supporters from various countries in the region, including Turkey.
In this transitional period, when the rulers of the old world shared the new world among them, it is sad that the desire for the “Islamic Union”, which has sprouted in the heart of the Islamic world, has still not been projected so that the majority of the people, religious and non-religious, can come to an agreement. However, it should not be considered unreasonable to hope that conscious Muslims, whose intellectual level is highly advanced, can come up with such an explanation and achieve the consensus of the majority. As long as it is understood that every project of our age seriously needs the support of the sociologically heterogeneous masses.
 Gorbaçov, Mihail; Glasnost and Perestroika, Translated by Tuba Tarcan Çandar ve Ahmet Cemal, 5. Edition, Dönemli Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 1988, pp. 41-179.
 Brzezinski, Zbigniew; The Grand Failure, Translated by Gül Keskil ve Gülsev Pakkan, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Ankara, 1990, pp. 230-233.
 Fukuyama, Francis; The End of History and the Last Man, Translated by Zülfü Dicleli, Simavi Yayınları, Istanbul, t.y.
 Nixon, Richard; Seize the Moment - America's Challenge in a One‑superpower, Translated by Fatoş Dilber, Milliyet Yayınları, İstanbul, 1992.
 Huntington, Samuel P.; “Clash of Civilizations?”, Translated by Mustafa Çalık, Türkiye Günlüğü dergisi, p. 23, 1993.
 Arkonaç, Sibel A; Sosyal Psikoloji, 2. edition, Alfa Yayınları, İstanbul, 2001, p. 162.
 Brooks, David; “I Am Not Charlie Hebdo”, www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0