By Zahir Ebrahim
Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, began his seminal 1928 book simply titled Propaganda, with these ominous words:
‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.’ — Edward Bernays, 1928, pg.1, Propaganda
Aldous Huxley, on the 30th anniversary of his own seminal 1931 allegorical novel Brave New World, made the following dreadful observations in the very opening segment of his talk on the Ultimate Revolution upon which mankind and modernity are perilously perched:
‘You can do everything with bayonets except sit on them! If you are going to control any population for any length of time you must have some measure of consent. It’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion. An element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them. Well, it seems to me that the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people actually to love their servitude! This is the, it seems to me the ultimate in malevolent revolution shall we say.’ — Aldous Huxley, 1962 speech at UC Berkeley, minute 04:06
In order to understand how the comprehension of Edward Bernays and Aldous Huxley, though both long dead, still manifests itself in these times, we must begin with the Mighty Wurlitzer.
What is the ‘Mighty Wurlitzer’?
It used to be the honorific of Frank Wisner, the first chief of political warfare for the Central Intelligence Agency, used to describe the C.I.A.’s plethora of front organizations and newsmedia stooges that he was capable of playing (like a great organ with many keyboards) for synthesizing any propaganda tune that was needed for the day. See Operation Mockingbird ( http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm ) (PDF).
The fact that such an omnipresent Message-Machine is not ancient history but very much current affairs, is underscored by this NYT headline “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand”, Sunday, April 20, 2008 ( http://tinyurl.com/6qhgfg ). Also see Jessica Lynch Media Myth-Making in Iraq War during Operation “Iraqi Freedom”.
Therefore, today, I use the term ‘Mighty Wurlitzer’as a metaphor to pluralistically refer to the same message-machine, i.e., the intelligence apparatus for manufacturing consent and controlling dissent, and its concomitant conscious manipulation of peoples’ thoughts, feelings, actions and in-actions, in order to serve the primacy interests of the ruling-elite. The latter are, invariably, also the de facto owners of the complete messaging-system now even more globally ubiquitous than when Frank Wisner played the world for a fool.
This ‘grand organ’ is now able to even more effectively synthesize, implant, and reinforce, all the right set of beliefs (myths) among the entire world’s public – by suitably combining ‘events’ with imaginative ‘expos’ writing – which appropriately primes the world populations to acquiesce to the oligarchic agendas. While playing this orchestra is now an integral part of all state-craft, its major musical themes are entirely determined by the behind the scenes owners of the system. While some might refer to the underlying techniques as propaganda and psy-ops, ‘Mighty Wurlitzer’ singularly captures the messaging-system controlled under a unified purpose of command which is both highly compartmentalized and cellularized. Only the Mighty Wurlitzer knows the entire tune.
What this means is that not all who willingly cooperate with the Mighty Wurlitzer in synchronistically humming its themes are knowingly being purveyors of its myths and deception. Many of its most shrill echoers are often well intentioned functionaries who are fed different motivating myths at different levels in the hierarchy – sometimes the lie is different at every level – such that it suitably motivates each according to their own predilection, professional station, and mission statement.
The Mighty Wurlitzer operates on the core premise which has been empirically shown to psychologically motivate most human action. That premise was elegantly captured in the following insightful observation made by the so called “Terrorism Study Group”, that
“‘Public Assumptions’ Shape Views of History: Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community. The sources for such presumptions are both personal (from direct experience) and vicarious (from books, movies, and myths).”
Successfully implanting such presumptions and pre-suppositions among any group is to motivate its overall actions in accordance with those implanted beliefs. Thus, many intelligent peoples for whom it is otherwise inexplicable to understand why they persist in ‘United We Stand’ with absurdities, are motivated to react sympathetically to those absurdities.
To barely catch a glimpse of how it’s partially done, the following description by Col. Fletcher Prouty from the Preface to the first edition of his 1973 book “The Secret Team” is instructive (PDF book):
‘There is another category of writer and self-proclaimed authority on the subjects of secrecy, intelligence, and containment. This man is the suave, professional parasite who gains a reputation as a real reporter by disseminating the scraps and “Golden Apples” thrown to him by the great men who use him. This writer seldom knows and rarely cares that many of the scraps from which he draws his material have been planted, that they are controlled leaks, and that he is being used, and glorified as he is being used, by the inside secret intelligence community.
Allen Dulles had a penchant for cultivating a number of such writers with big names and inviting them to his table for a medieval style luncheon in that great room across the hall from his own offices in the old CIA headquarters on the hill overlooking Foggy Bottom. Here, he would discuss openly and all too freely the same subjects that only hours before had been carefully discussed in the secret inner chambers of the operational side of that quiet Agency. In the hands of Allen Dulles, “secrecy” was simply a chameleon device to be used as he saw fit and to be applied to lesser men according to his schemes. It is quite fantastic to find people like Daniel Ellsberg being charged with leaking official secrets simply because the label on the piece of paper said “top secret,” when the substance of many of the words written on those same papers was patently untrue and no more than a cover story. Except for the fact that they were official lies, these papers had no basis in fact, and therefore no basis to be graded top secret or any other degree of classification. Allen Dulles would tell similar cover stories to his coterie of writers, and not long thereafter they would appear in print in some of the most prestigious papers and magazines in the country, totally unclassified, and of course, cleverly untrue.
In every case, the chance for complete information is very small, and the hope that in time researchers, students, and historians will be able to ferret out truth from untruth, real from unreal, and story from cover story is at best a very slim one. Certainly, history teaches us that one truth will add to and enhance another; but let us not forget that one lie added to another lie will demolish everything. This is the important point. Consider the past half century. How many major events — really major events — have there been that simply do not ring true? How many times has the entire world been shaken by alarms of major significance, only to find that the events either did not happen at all, or if they did, that they had happened in a manner quite unlike the original story?’
Coldly implicit in Col. Prouty’s afore-quoted empirical statement: “and the hope that in time researchers, students, and historians will be able to ferret out truth from untruth, real from unreal, and story from cover story is at best a very slim one”, is the Machiavellian notion of sewing faits accomplis in current affairs by straight-jacketing all public discourse in deception, and leaving the ferreting out of ‘truth’ to future generation of scholars and historians when separating myths from the calculus of hegemony can at best only be a bogus academic exercise entirely irrelevant to reversing the faits accomplis already sewn. See Convince People of Absurdities and get them Acquiescing to Atrocities: The Enduring Power of Machiavellian Political Science ( http://tinyurl.com/historys-actors ). Also see Unlayering the Middle East War Agenda: Making Sense of Absurdities ( http://tinyurl.com/unpeeling-lies ).
A pertinent example of Col. Fletcher Prouty’s fabricated leaks noted above, is the Wikileaks’ July 2010 disclosures of ‘The Afghanistan Papers’ which revealed nothing new.
Wikileaks has always been a rather transparent Mighty Wurlitzer ops. It is trivial to see through the absurdity of its existence despite it promoting itself as being a sort of watchdog upon the empire, and therefore, ostensibly, being inimical to its unbridled quest for “full spectrum dominance” – just like Al Jazeera television based in Qatar, which too, absurdly enough, is permitted to function unhindered in the same nation as America’s CENTCOM headquarters. Would it not be trivial for an armed to the teeth National Security State to take-out either apparatus rather trivially? And that may happen once the useful idiots have outlived their utility, for he who sups with the devil must have a long spoon!
The reason each is allowed to function is of course social engineering, the sine qua non for waging modern warfare upon civilian populations by way of deception. It spans the entire gamut of engineering consent, from mantra creation in the mainstream and diabolically controlling dissent in order to control all opposition, to actually fabricating the visible pretexts which can naturally ripen the conditions for the mantra of “clash of civilizations” to be called real before the Western public in order to sustain the otherwise untenable “imperial mobilization”. Zbigniew Brzezinski had most succinctly summed up this motivation in his book The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives: “Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization”.
How can one tell manufactured reportage and fabricated leaks from the real stuff? How can one see through the Mighty Wurlitzer?
As daunting as it might appear to the mainstream television watcher, it is in fact rather straightforward for those unencumbered by blind faith in governments and its statecraft. Just look for the core-lies and unquestioned axioms of empire that are typically retained in the “leaks” and reportage which, in order to sound credible, often openly expose what is mostly already known anyway or judiciously employ some variation of “Limited Hangout” wrapped in a veneer of dissent, ‘freedom of the press’, and often accompanied by the facade of angst and opposition from the state.
Furthermore, look for some of the lauded dissent names rushing to support the Limited Hangout – just as it was with Daniel Ellsberg for his infamous Pentagon Papers – to afford a veneer of legitimacy to the whistleblowing revelations of supposed state-secrets having caused some great harm to the state. The extravagance enacted in the mainstream media, alternately making heroes of the whistleblowers and demonizing them, is a giveaway to the circus show being enacted for plebeian consumption. For, it matters not which side one takes, as both sides are patently false, crafted of calculated omissions and half-truths that retain core-lies, right out of the text book of the Technique of Infamy : invent two lies and keep the public busy debating which of them is true!
The role of crafty omissions in fabricating propaganda was best captured by Aldous Huxley in his Preface to Brave New World thusly:
‘The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be made as effective as the negative.’ — Aldous Huxley, Preface (circa 1946) to Brave New World, 1931, Harper, pg. 11
To uncover omissions in a discourse is very difficult for the public who do not often have command over the domain in which the falsehoods are being perpetuated. As the psychological insight already quoted above from the Terrorism Study Group betrays, “’Public Assumptions’ Shape Views of History. Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” Which is why inculcating ignorance, especially political-historical ignorance pertaining to international relations, and being trusting of authority figures and the state, are the pre-requisites for any vile propaganda to succeed! A well-bred lack of skepticism to authority figures, whether to mainstream leaders in politics and to experts in scientific disciplines, or to dissenting chiefs playing controlled opposition, thus becomes the heart of social engineering.
This surfeit of blind trust in authority is what is ultimately harvested by the Mighty Wurlitzer. For a skeptical public, the tunes of the Mighty Wurlitzer would fall on very deaf ears and public governance for private agendas would be well-nigh impossible in democratic nations. This is qualitatively no different than the power exercised by the religious clergy upon their faithful flock in any religion. Except that modernity has perniciously replaced them with multi-faceted secular clergies, the “experts”, each demanding obedience from its own ‘United We Stand’ trusting flock in all aspects of modern life.
This is also why “leaking” information from “experts” and “insiders” commands such a premium in Machiavellian democratic statecraft. When used judiciously so as not to dilute its impact, it can herd the flock in pretty much any direction that is desired.
As further empirically evidenced in the forensic analysis presented here, these so called whistleblowing of leaky buckets also succeed in accomplishing two important elements of statecraft:
vicariously reinvigorate in the short-term public memory, the already established-by-fiat facts and core-axioms of empire;
establish new convenient facts on the ground which are subsequently accepted as revealed gospel truths because of the already established thought-stream by the scholars of empire that when something is held in secret or is classified and subsequently declassified, or is prematurely leaked to the public, that it must contain some genuine “state secrets”, and never red herrings. Such thought-streams enable the directives of NSC 10/2 for plausible deniability (and those like it which we do not know about) to be trivially impressed upon the public mind (see Anatomy of Conspiracy Theory). These revelations of presumed “state-secrets” subsequently become the new unquestioned backdrops for both state policies and public discourses – the new “doctrinal motivations” – with copious help from the Mighty Wurlitzer’s refined machinery.
This enables the successful deployment of pre-planned policy prescriptions which craftily impel the various incantations of hegemony forward in baby-steps. Both, domestically by incrementally clamping down hard on rising discontent in the name of “national security”, and internationally by continuing to wage unpopular wars of preemption upon the ‘untermenschen’. The infernal enemy has now been (re)confirmed to exist (despite popular skepticism) since even empire’s own henchmen in their secret documents also affirm that belief (sic!). Speak of self-servingly suffering from a incestuously self-reinforced “crippled epistemology”!
Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1996 book The Grand Chessboard, un-abashedly argued the need for such invigorations of the public mind in the following majestic words, betraying his immense knowledge of Machiavellian statecraft’s reliance on social engineering:
“Public opinion polls suggest that only a small minority (13 percent) of Americans favor the proposition that ‘as the sole remaining superpower, the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems’. … Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. …. More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification.” (page 211 and onwards, PDF book)
The diabolical utility of planting of “‘Public Assumptions’ [that] Shape Views of History” and therefore of current affairs, as the “doctrinal motivation” which can create “intellectual commitment”, and is rewarded by “patriotic gratification” , in this ‘War on Terror’ against the vile Militant Islam’s torch bearers, the Islamofascists, cannot escape the careful reader’s attention.
Predictably, with rising skepticism among the public on the utility of pursuing endless wars against illusive enemies that is making their own nation go bankrupt, more “harmful leaks” will occur, but understandably none which are actually substantial. Like, blowing the lid on 9/11 as an inside job, directly naming the top beneficiaries who shorted the Airline stocks raking in billions, or revealing how BBC came to report the demolition of WTC-7 a full 20 minutes before it actually transpired, never mind lending confirmation to any of the forensic detective work by independent researchers from the debris of 9/11, etceteras. And the main leaker du jour, Mr. patsy Julian Assange, like Mr. patsy Lee Harvey Oswald before him, will be sacrificed, perhaps with a new ‘lone gunmen’ enactment, or perhaps juridically, to lend the hoopla even more public respectability. Also see Dismantling the Fiction of ‘Former’ and ‘Ex’ Intelligence – Zahir Ebrahim’s Response to Philip Giraldi.
It’s the exact same recipe as is used by all the other fabricated and controlled dissent assets of empire when they are not outright spinning patent lies, for spinning half-truths requires far more brilliance. One can already see the main dissent-chiefs of the West, like the venerable professor Noam Chomsky, anointed by the New York Times as “arguably the most important intellectual alive”, and the distinguished Daniel Ellsberg, excitedly supporting these Wikileaks exposés as if something ethereal was “revealed in the Sinai”.
It is not for nothing that James Jesus Angleton, Head of CIA Counter Intelligence 1954-1974, is quoted in the 1992 BBC-2 Documentary on Operation Gladio: “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State”. See: Angleton (1917 – 1987). Manufacturing Dissent with controlled opposition is an indispensable core construct of that very statecraft of deception. See: ‘Manufacturing Dissent: Weapons of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science‘.
With the preceding backdrop for overarching context, let’s examine what I believe has been accomplished by Wikileaks in its service to empire’s “War on Terrorism”. Please see “What is War on Terror?” ( http://tinyurl.com/what-is-war-on-terror ) before proceeding further if you are only familiar with its rational insanity in empire’s Newspeak. Meaning, the ‘War on Terror’ is not irrational. It is firmly rooted in the rational political science of “imperial mobilization”.
The core-lies retained in the Wikileaks’ July 2010 disclosures – which I call ‘the Afghanistan Papers’ – is to once again reaffirm that there is a real nemesis called “Osama Bin Laden”, that the “war on terror” is real, that it is being inflicted upon the West from Pakistan-Iran nexus, and to re-substantiate the handoff of former President George W. Bush’s clairvoyance to the Obama Administration that “If another September 11 style attack is being planned, it probably is being plotted in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan”! That, when such a “planned” attack transpires, it “will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison”. See: ‘Bin Laden’: Key enabler of “imperial mobilization” and nuclear attack on Iran-Pakistan ( http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/04/binladen-keyenabler-nuclearattack.html ).
The successful handoff of “imperial mobilization” to Pakistan and Iran, now further sprightly underscored by Wikileaks’ documents, is once again demonstrated by President Obama’s Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s July 2010 remark to the BBC as quoted by Reuters: “There are still additional steps that we are asking and expecting the Pakistanis to take. But there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that should an attack against the United States be traced to be Pakistani, it would (have) a very devastating impact on our relationship”. And that is merely just another echo from the Obama Administration of what the Pakistanis themselves have been made to parrot the past 9 years, as demonstrated by its own Ambassador’s remark in 2008:
‘[On] Wednesday, a media report quoted Pakistan’s envoy to Washington as saying that US leaders had warned Islamabad that if the United States suffered an attack that was traced back to Pakistan Washington would retaliate. “Those (statements) have been made,” Ambassador Hussain Haqqani told editors and reporters at The Washington Post. “We want to make sure that it doesn’t come to that.”’ — DAWN, June 12, 2008
To show Pakistan’s unflinching willingness to do as much more as was asked, the Ambassador of Pakistan had further stated in an interview to Reuters in 2008:
‘Pakistan would attack Osama bin Laden the moment it had reliable intelligence on the Al Qaeda leader’s whereabouts, Ambassador Husain Haqqani said on Wednesday. Haqqani also said he was confident Pakistan could help foil any Al Qaeda plans to attack the United States, although he did not know of any right now. “A cooperative effort between all the allies, and that includes Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States and NATO – I think we can thwart any potential plans for an attack,” Haqqani said in an interview with Reuters.
He said Pakistani intelligence had helped defeat many of the “several dozen” Al Qaeda plots detected worldwide since the September 11, 2001, attacks, but government officials knew of no immediate threats to the United States. Haqqani said Pakistan would act on its own against Al Qaeda if necessary. “If Pakistan, Afghanistan or the United States had specific intelligence on the location of Osama bin Laden, they would have acted on it. No reservations would have come in the way of action on that, and none will even in the future,” he said. “If any of us had that actionable intelligence we would all act. We would act separately, we would act in tandem, we would act cooperatively – we would act.”’ — DAWN, June 12, 2008
So, could these self-serving ‘Afghanistan Papers’ have been any more convenient as a casus belli, carrying forth the same core-lies now entering its tenth year? If Wikileaks’ dramatization grabbing all the world’s headlines isn’t an officially sponsored “modified limited hangout” for exactly that purpose of reinforcing the core-lies, then the White House not even bothering to stop the New York Times – whose own motto is ‘All the news that’s fit to print’ – from publishing it, even giving it “all got gold stars” as the Salon put it on July 26, 2010, is downright inexplicable:
“So, uh … why was all of this information classified and top secret? If it’s old news, and it just confirms what “everyone” already knows, what was the rationale for keeping it classified and calling WikiLeaks all sorts of mean names for publishing it?”
What would it matter afterwards, after Iran and Pakistan have been bombed, what were lies and what was truth? Did the bogus mea culpa by the 2005 Presidential Commission on intelligence failure, the Iraq Study Group’s disingenuous conclusion: “We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure,” reverse the decimation of Iraq? Did the New York Times 2008 revelation of Pentagon’s Message Machine after ‘all the barbers in town already knew it’, return back to its silos each and every cruise missile that was dropped upon the innocent civilians of Iraq?
That is the real import of the craftsmanship of the Mighty Wurlitzer! To engineer a fait accompli by manufacturing consent among the gullible masses and dissent among the rabble rousers, leaving future scholars, historians, and the odd malcontent to laudingly study the ashes left behind by “history’s actors”. A diabolical modus operandi of democratic statecraft which the Mighty Wurlitzer’s operators even brazenly brag about:
‘“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”’ (Ron Suskind, New York Times, Oct. 17, 2004)
It is now patently obvious with the Obama Administration officially declaring Osama Bin Laden killed in an American raid on May 1, 2011, why Wikileaks had to “leak” the officialdom’s belief that he was still alive in July 2010! It is all too evident that some mileage is being derived by officially burying that nemesis at sea, a thousand miles from where they proclaim they killed him in an ambush in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Conveniently, it was in Pakistan and not Afghanistan that mankind’s toughest and most resourceful nemesis was found and killed. The color coded threat alerts instantly went up worldwide. Pakistan Navy presumably already suffered a bizarre revenge attack on its naval base in Karachi from Ali Baba’s elusive organization still intact, and now even more formidable than ever before. And its base of operation? Of course Pakistan!
Just as George W. Bush Jr., had intimated was the new Terror Central: “If another September 11 style attack is being planned, it probably is being plotted in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan”!
Was the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush Jr., just inordinately insightful to predict such matters as he was preparing to hand the presidential charge to his successor on the “change” platform? Carefully dissecting the nature of such clairvoyance can perhaps also help the public to become clairvoyant in these often confusing matters on international relations, especially on what’s likely to come as the next global terror threat in the aftermath of Osama Bin Laden. Let’s briefly review how the terrorism of 9/11 was continually foretold by the masters of discourse themselves – for that will surely show how to treat their next bit of fortune telling.
Let’s begin at the very inception of the ‘arc of crisis’ which Zbigniew Brzezinski laid the groundwork for during his reign of terror upon the USSR as the National Security Advisor to the 38th President of the United States, Jimmy Carter. See Instrumenting Kosovo in the ‘arc of crisis’ and the ‘global zone of percolating violence’ ( http://tinyurl.com/arc-of-crisis ) for other details of the epoch and its connections to the present ‘War on Terror’. It suffices to quote here the following brilliantly clairvoyant statement attributed to Israeli Intelligence founder from the same epoch in 1979, a full two decades prior to 9/11:
‘On Sept. 23, 1979, the founder of Israeli intelligence over dinner told me that America was developing a tolerance for terror. The gentleman’s name was Isser Harel, the founder of Mossad Israeli intelligence-he ran it from 1947 to 1963. He told me that America had developed an alliance between two countries, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and that the alliance with Saudi Arabia was dangerous and would develop a tolerance for terror among Americans. He said if the tolerance continued that Islamic fundamentalists would ultimately strike America. I said “Where?” He said, “In Islamic theology, the phallic symbol is very important. Your biggest phallic symbol is New York City and your tallest building will be the phallic symbol they will hit.” Isser Harel prophesied that the tallest building in New York would be the first building hit by Islamic fundamentalists 21 years ago.’ Source
And Mossad again betrayed its brilliant clairvoyance 20 years later:
‘The attacks on the World Trade Centre’s twin towers and the Pentagon were humiliating blows to the intelligence services, which failed to foresee them, and to the defence forces of the most powerful nation in the world, which failed to deflect them. The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation. “They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement,” said a senior Israeli security official.’ — UK Telegraph, 16 Sep 2001
Seeded by that “prophesy” from the stellar Israeli intelligence mind, British Zionist Svengali at Princeton University, Professor Bernard Lewis planted the ‘The Roots of Muslim Rage’ in 1990 in the Council on Foreign Relations’ prestigious magazine Foreign Affairs. An influential establishmentarian mouthpiece which is read around the world by those who believe that if you want to know what will happen ten years from now in any remote corner of the world, read Foreign Affairs of ten years ago:
“In 1990 Bernard Lewis, a leading Western scholar of Islam, analyzed ‘The Roots of Muslim Rage,’ and concluded: ‘It should now be clear that we are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations – that perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both. It is crucially important that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally irrational reaction against our rival.’” — Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996, pg. 213
That ‘Muslim Rage’ was subsequently transformed in 1996 into a full blown political ideology for governing International Relations of the sole superpower as the infamous ‘Clash of Civilizations’, by Bernard Lewis’ confrere and fellow Zionist at Harvard University, Professor Samuel Huntington:
‘The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the US Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the basic ingredient that fuel conflict between Islam and the West.’ — Ibid. pg. 217
‘Some Westerners, including [ex] President Bill Clinton, have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise…. Islam is the only civilization which has put the survival of the West in doubt, and it has done that at least twice… The parallel concepts of ‘jihad’ and ‘crusade’ not only resemble each other…’ — Ibid. pg. 209
This systematic myth construction of ‘Islamic Terror’ was prime for harvesting as the global ‘War on Terrorism’ on September 11, 2001 by George W. Bush with the dialectical ultimatum to the world: “either you are with us, or with the terrorists”!
Within 15 minutes of the super terrorism of that day in infamy, the newsmedia had been awash in naming the first terrorist: Osama Bin Laden! The scripted discourse is of course repeated ad nauseum to this very day, the last time by President Obama himself while announcing the boogeyman’s demise on May 1, 2011: “Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people, and to the world. The United States has conducted an operation that has killed Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda.”
That’s of course, after already having reiterated on the heals of his predecessor, on June 4th 2009, who was responsible for 9/11: “But let us be clear. Al Qaeeda killed nearly 3000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody.”
And all foretold by the clairvoyance of the Zionist Israeli Mossad founder, and reinforced by other Israeli Military Intelligence Mossad agents in the days just preceding 9/11, of the brilliant Islamic fundamentalists’ successful attack on the West’s most prominent “phallic symbol”.
Bernard Lewis subsequently justified George W. Bush’s launching of the global ‘War on Terrorism’ in his phantasmic 2003 book Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror. First by reinforcing his earlier seeding of the mantra of ‘the roots of the irrational Muslim rage’, and extending those roots to Islam itself:
‘But Islam, like other religions, has also known periods when it inspired in some of its followers a mood of hatred and violence. It is our misfortune that we have to confront part of the Muslim world while it is going through such a period, and when most – though by no means all – of that hatred is directed against us.’ — Bernard Lewis, Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror, pg. 25
And then clairvoyantly predicting the following self-serving conclusions as his last word:
‘If the fundamentalists are correct in their calculations and succeed in their war, then a dark future awaits the world, especially that part of it that embraces Islam.’ — Ibid. Chapter IX: The Rise of Terrorism, pg. 164
‘If freedom fails and terror triumphs, the peoples of Islam will be the first and greatest victims. They will not be alone, and many others will suffer with them.’ — Ibid. Afterword, December 1, 2003, pg. 169
The Collateral Damage to Language for Synthesizing the Doctrinal Motivation of Islamofascism
Before we continue further, it is necessary to deconstruct the crafty use of language for synthesizing the aforementioned propaganda to fuel the “War on Terror”. The following is extracted from Project Humanbeingsfirst’s very critical response to the CAIR Report titled Calling CAIR to Account for its Omissions, for their egregiously omitting the most crucial fact of the matter in their otherwise stellar documentation of the rise of Islamophobia in America. The CAIR report was issued in collaboration with the Center for Race & Gender at the University of California, Berkeley. The significance of the following dismantling from first principles, beginning with the very use of language and the re-semantification of words to construct the propaganda system of Islamofascism, will not be lost to the builders of tall totem poles who worry about having plausibly sound doctrinal foundations in order to have propaganda stand at all.
Let’s examine the usage of the word “Islam” by Bernard Lewis.
Unlike Christians and Christianity, Muslims have two completely separate words to designate the people who proclaim to follow the religion or are born into that culture (Muslims) vs. the divine religion (Islam). Any time you see one terminology aliasing for another, you might do well to remember that there is some axe to grind somewhere. Bernard Lewis is the venerable master of this obfuscation being amiably carried by CAIR without reservation. Bernard Lewis began his treatise “Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror” with the following gem:
“It is difficult to generalize about Islam. To begin with, the word itself is commonly used with two related but distinct meanings, as the equivalents both of Christianity, and Christendom. In the one sense, it denotes a religion, as system of beliefs and worship; in the other, the civilization that grew up and flourished under the aegis of that religion. The word Islam thus denotes more than fourteen centuries of history, a billion and a third people, and a religious and cultural tradition of enormous diversity.” — Bernard Lewis, Crisis of Islam, pg. 1
That last sentence is the diabolical deception with which imperial craftsmanship subverts our religion: “The word Islam thus denotes more than fourteen centuries of history, a billion and a third people, and a religious and cultural tradition of enormous diversity.”
According to the Author of the Holy Qur’an upon which the religion of Islam is based, the word “Islam” denotes only, and only, the following:
“This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion;” ( Arabic الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ۚ Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Maida 5:3)
Indeed. Islam is the name of a religion, “deen” ( الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ).
That is the only, repeat only, context in which the word “Islam” can be legitimately used. It is the only context in which Qur’an has used it, indicating a divine religion to which the Author of the Qur’an itself gave the name “Islam”. The people didn’t chose that name. Whether or not someone believes in Qur’an’s “divinity” is irrelevant to us here; that is what the Book and the Religion upon which Bernard Lewis is proffering his imperial scholarship, itself proclaims.
This is very significant. The word “Islam” is quite distinct from the word used to designate Islam’s followers and the affairs of its followers. That separation of terminology is itself espoused in the Holy Qur’an by virtue of having a separate terminology to refer to the followers. Once again, while this may sound repetitious, but to the Western mind wholly attuned to referring to Christians and Christianity with the same root word devolving from their God named “Christ”, no amount of repetition can ever be sufficient to drive the point home. The Qur’an itself defined a different nomenclature to name its followers; the followers didn’t:
“Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a Muslim nation, bowing to Thy (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites; and turn unto us (in Mercy); for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.” ( Arabic رَبَّنَا وَاجْعَلْنَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ لَكَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِنَا أُمَّةً مُسْلِمَةً لَكَ وَأَرِنَا مَنَاسِكَنَا وَتُبْ عَلَيْنَا ۖ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Baqara 2:128)
This separation of terminology is in fact a singular distinction of Islam in comparison to all the other Abrahamic religions, indeed all major religions of the world including Hinduism, Bhuddism, and Zoroastrianism, which do not feature such a clear separation.
This is why followers of Prophet Muhammad for instance, are not called “Mohammedans”, nor believers of Islam “Islamic”, “Islamist”, etc. except by the prejudicial orientalists.
The word designated in the Holy Qur’an for human beings who are Muslims, regardless of good or bad people, pious or murderers, sinners or saints, is “Muslims”, or to be exact in the transliteration, “Muslimeen” ( مُسْلِمَيْنِ ). The Muslims throughout the world are referred to as “Muslim Umma”, or to be exact in the transliteration, “Ummat-e-Muslima” ( أُمَّةً مُسْلِمَةً ).
All who misuse the Qur’anic terminology, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are either ignorant peoples – and there are always plenty of “learned morons” and parrots in every epoch who are deftly planted on the pulpit – or, the respected apprentices of Machiavelli. In the latter case, they deliberately try to subvert the religion of Islam by associating it with the inglorious deeds and the kingly history of Muslims.
One can immediately see the result of such gratuitous binding. It enables drawing false and specious associations by overloading the semantics in an already well-defined nomenclature.
That is the principal basis for subliminally, as well as cognitively, binding something virtuous (the religion) with something abhorrent (the vile deeds of the peoples, their kings, their cultures, their civilization). Thus, when the word Islam is mentioned, the abhorrent, or whatever is deemed abhorrent by Oriental scholarship, naturally springs to the mind of the seduced.
Based solely on that premeditated collateral damage to language that Samuel Huntington, the late circus clown of empire at Harvard, diabolically made the already quoted statement on “Islam” in his treatise “The Clash of Civilizations”. It is reproduced again because now we dissect it from the language point of view:
“The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the US Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the basic ingredient that fuel conflict between Islam and the West.” (Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996, pg. 217)
Since when did the word “Islam” indicate civilization? A civilization is an aggregate of peoples, harboring one or more cultures, one or more languages, one or more customs, one or more religions. Like the Western civilization which has the nations of German, French, English, American, Russian, etceteras, that many languages, and many religions are practiced in these nations, including atheism, Christianity, and Islam. Whereas Islam is a religion, a “deen”. A religion can be practiced in any civilization, by any peoples, including right here in the USA.
Samuel Huntington’s teacher was evidently Bernard Lewis, as evidenced from their common re-semantification of the word “Islam”. This is how Huntington was able to demonize Islam: “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam,” and “These are the basic ingredient that fuel conflict between Islam and the West.” We have already witnessed the passage above in which Samuel Huntington cited his Princeton University confrere Bernard Lewis as the author of ‘The Roots of Muslim Rage’ and the first authority on the “Clash of Civilizations”. They incestuously reinforce each other rather well, don’t they? Cass Sunstein, the other propagandist Harvard Law professor and President Obama’s information tzar, referred to such incestuous self-reinforcements in his erudite paper on “Conspiracy Theories” in the more refined academic jargon, as “crippled epistemology”.
As we perceptively observe, it is the diabolical misuse of language which first and foremost enables drafting a thesis like “Clash of Civilizations”. (See Prisoners of the Cave Chapter 9 which deconstructs Huntington’s craftsmanship in more depth.) Such theses, made erudite and plausible sounding with the IVY League stamp, are thence crafted into simple propaganda to seed the Mighty Wurlitzer’s many compositions. It is repeated ad nauseum thereafter.
Since Western people’s point of reference is mainly Christianity where the common root word denotes everything, the people “Christians”, the religion “Christianity”, the civilization “Christendom”, even the God “Christ” – in fact everything that Bernard Lewis falsely and maliciously imputed to Islam on page 1 of his propaganda manual “Crisis of Islam” – the same kitchen sink linguistics devilishly attributed to Islam, repeatedly, makes it believable for the un-informed Western public.
Thus, maligning Islam before the un-informed masses becomes a child’s play for the Mighty Wurlitzer. Effective propaganda is always targeted only at the ordinary un-informed peoples, “the crowd of simpletons and the credulous”, as examined in the report Manufacturing Dissent. Its core purpose is to control public behavior by instilling false beliefs.
And we can see its rich harvest not in just the ‘United We Stand’ against “militant Islam” and the unfettered “imperial mobilization” and “shock and “awe”, but in the Qur’an burning, Islam bashing, and other Islamophobic festivities of the ignorant people against Muslims. It is surely not a surprise then, that Islamophobia should have increased steadily in the United States and the West since 9/11. Islamophobia is only the desired and natural effect of the propaganda system of the Mighty Wurlitzer. Like the festering boil on the protesting bride’s lip, it is only symptomatic of the real syphilis beneath the virtuous wedding gown.
This crucial analysis unarguably illustrates how imperial scholars incestuously reinforce each other in implanting the “doctrinal motivation” mentioned by Zbigniew Brzezinski as being necessary for “imperial mobilization”. It was pretty much the same protocol in the quest for Lebensraum of the Third Reich in yesteryear. At Nuremberg, the Nazi Party’s chief philosopher, Alfred Rosenberg, was hanged for his mumbo jumbo. The third Reich’s chief of propaganda, Reichminister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, committed suicide after administering cyanide to his wife and six young children before the long arm of justice could wring his neck. Just thought I’d mention that in passing.
Such premeditated collateral damage to language, with the concomitant priming of doctrinal fuel for the long gestating mantras of “The Roots of Muslim Rage” years in advance of its catastrophic unveiling, is what so trivially enabled forging a bipartisan political consensus on the US foreign policy of aggression and invasion in the immediate aftermath of the shock effects of 9/11. The Patriot Act I was passed quickly without reading, and the entire United States Congress, save one member, gave its green light to invade Afghanistan. The mightiest and richest nation on earth patriotically savaged the poorest and weakest nation on earth in a broad political consensus. The American peoples ‘United We Stand’ saluting the flag, and motor car bumper stickers proudly proclaimed “We Support Our Troops”.
Please refer back to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s quoted passages above to refresh your memory that he had shrewdly stated: “Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” And also refer forward to Catastrophic Terrorism in the Further Study section to appreciate how it was already well understood that “Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a ‘before’ and ‘after.’”
The Grand Chessboard effectively blueprints the entire chain of causal linkages which have empirically transpired since 9/11, exactly as it was for Hitler’s Mein Kampf. The US Chief prosecuting counsel at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson, had declared on hearing the protestations from the Nazi leadership on trial that they didn’t know:
“The plans of Adolf Hitler for aggression were just as secret as Mein Kampf, of which over six million copies were published in Germany” — Justice Robert H. Jackson in his closing speech at Nuremberg, on Friday, 7/26/1946, Morning Session, Part 3, Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal
The Islamophobia steadily rising even in the tenth year of the catastrophic terrorism of 9/11 as documented by CAIR and the University of California, Berkeley, is a direct descendent of the Dynamics of Mantra Creation for “Islamofascism”. One can no more describe the effects of Islamophobia without also describing its first cause than one can describe the color of a tree without describing its first cause, the DNA of the tree. Only scholars and traders with mala fide intent will mask that causal linkage. That is a crime against the people! Only fools will refuse to understand it. And that is the success of the Mighty Wurlitzer.
The preceding success of the Mighty Wurlitzer effectively enables introducing the Hegelian Dialectic of “moderate Islam”.
Once demonized sufficiently with “militant Islam” and “islamofascism”, with “Islamophobia” sufficiently priming the public, the new propaganda slogan automatically becomes: we want to “reform Islam” for a more “moderate Islam”!
To mobilize this new devil like the previous one for “militant Islam” also requires the same “high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification.” as perceptively observed by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard. Please refer back to the full quoted excerpt above to remind yourself of this fact.
Thus new comparable works of “doctrinal motivation” become available preaching “moderate Islam”. These works and writings started appearing immediately in the aftermath of 9/11 with learned Muslim clerics making loud proclamations against “militant Islam” and speaking of “good Muslims” vs. “bad Muslims” (see interview Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, San Jose Mercury News, Sunday Edition, September 16, 2001, cached). Clerics most faithfully echoing the core message of empire are immediately invited to the White House and to the Presidential Address in Congress by President George W. Bush Jr. and seated with Laura Bush and Tony Blair for dutifully speaking out against “Militant Islam” (watch CSPAN Presidential Address, September 20, 2001, see video image of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf with Laura Bush, Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld offering standing ovation to George W. Bush’s pending invasions of Muslim nations along with the rest of United States Congress). Religious fatwas are issued against “militant Islam” and terrorism by “moderate” clerics in favor of “moderate Islam” (see Response to the Fatwa on Terrorism in the Service of Empire, this photograph reveals the fatwa granting cleric Tahir ul Qadri prominently seated and speaking at the World Economic Forum).
New translations of the Holy Qur’an are marketed to “bring reform to Islam” by respectable progressive scholars (see Critique: Laleh Bakhtiar and The Sublime Quran). Shocking eye-catching news headlines in Westerndom’s most prestigious newspapers announce their availability (see The Sunday Times of London, March 31, 2007, Wife-beating rejected in ‘new’ Koran ).
And the same three ring circus is masterfully conducted by the Mighty Wurlitzer with the “moderate Islam” show added to play concurrently in the same broad arena with many other side shows (switching metaphor for appropriateness). The crucial difference in this instance however is that it is seemingly staged by “reform minded”, progressive, as well as conservative Muslims themselves. Sophisticated and scholarly looking Muslim intellectuals are recruited for this purpose from across the intellectual spectrum (see FAQ What is an Intellectual Negro?).
Muslim bookstores prominently feature the “reform Islam” authors’ works with glowing tributes: “This is the first edition of the Quran translated by an American woman. This modern, inclusive translation refutes past translations that have been used to justify violence against women.” (see Kazi Publications, frontpage cached). Please refer to Critique: Laleh Bakhtiar and The Sublime Quran where the following commonsense is noted with respect to the preceding statement:
‘It is your grave misconception that Muslims beat their wives because the Holy Qur’an gives them permission to beat their wives. Muslims also kill their wives, do honor killings of their children and family members, and a thousand other grotesque and equally criminal things in Muslim societies – and the Holy Qur’an strictly forbids it all.
And Muslims do no more horrendous acts than the pious Western Christians and holy Western Jews who commit the most heinous crimes, and monumental crimes against humanity which are on-going even as I write this. The white man today is calculatingly killing and raping far more Muslim women on a daily basis with “shock and awe”, drone attacks, military occupation, to the thunderous silence of Western champions of human rights than any Muslims assaulting their wives in domestic quarrels because of 4:34. But of course it is Islam which needs to be reformed first with a new translation of the Holy Qur’an. Daniel Pipes must be feeling rather pleased with himself for this fortuitous gift.’ — Zahir Ebrahim in his letter of critique to Laleh Bakhtiar
It is evidently more effective if respectable looking mainstream Muslims themselves appear to drive the demand to “bring reform to Islam” for “moderate Islam” rather than Jews like Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Bernard Lewis, the late Samuel Huntington, the neo-cons at AIPAC, JINSA. AEI; Christians like the 700 Club, Quran burning pastor of the Church in Florida whose book on Islam is pictured above; the White House, the Pentagon; the think-tanks; the Western courts, et. al., appear to be driving it. The synergistic WWF wrestling matches however always only collect windfall profits for the same root promoter.
The revealing thing to observe here is the intriguing background of some of the most prominent among these “moderate Islam” shrill voices in America. They are often converts to Islam from Christian heritage and have become self-taught scholars of Islam in America with imposing command of Arabic. The loud mouth striving to “bring reform to Islam” by writing an entirely new English translation of the Holy Qur’an no less, titled The Sublime Quran (see image above), grew up as a Catholic of mixed Iranian-American parentage. She is Laleh Bakhtiar, Ph.D. in Education Psychology. As a linguist in Arabic and English, she employs the same re-semantification of the word “Islam” as Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington when she pitches “bring reform to Islam”! In the Critique: Laleh Bakhtiar and The Sublime Quran:
‘You surely could not have meant ‘reform the religion of Islam’ for which the Holy Qur’an stated: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion;” ( Arabic الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ۚ Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Maida 5:3)
You are going to reform what Allah [perfected]?
You surely must have meant to say ‘reform the misunderstandings among the Muslims regarding Islam.’
Then why not just say exactly what you mean?
Does the statement “bring reform to Islam” mean the same thing as ‘bring reform to Muslims’ to a grammarian and linguist who has translated the Holy Qur’an from Arabic into English?’ — Zahir Ebrahim in his letter of critique to Laleh Bakhtiar
And the loudest mouth decrying “militant Islam” from the first day of 9/11 is of course Hamza Yusuf, convert to Islam from Orthodox Christianity. He was studying to be a male nurse in Santa Clara California where I knew him in the 1980s giving fiery Friday sermons to the delight of the pious Muslim worshipers, before he conferred upon himself the lofty honorific of “Shaykh” in the 1990s and started his own institute to teach “moderate Islam” to Americans. Called the Zaytuna Institute, now Zaytuna College in Berkeley. He is well respected among many American Muslims who swear by his scholarship with an almost cult like faith – the “moderate Islam”. He has acquired international fame for his oratory and his command of the arcane in the Muslim writings of antiquity so revered by the majority of Muslims. He told the UK Guardian’s Jack O’Sullivan in an article titled: ‘If you hate the west, emigrate to a Muslim country‘, October 08, 2001:
‘ “Many Muslims seem to be in deep denial about what has happened,” he says. “They are coming up with different conspiracy theories and don’t entertain the real possibility that it was indeed Muslims who did this. Yet we do have people within our ranks who have reached that level of hatred and misguidance.” ‘
Jack O’Sullivan introduced Hamza Yusuf in the lede to his aforementioned article with this description:
‘Hamza Yusuf is arguably the west’s most influential Islamic scholar. Many Muslims find his views hard to stomach, but he is advising the White House on the current crisis, and today he will be talking to religious leaders in the UK’.
As respected Muslim opinion makers bearing exactly the right credentials to appeal to their respective Muslim constituencies, they make great useful idiots and/or assets for this Hegelian Dialectic just like their “militant Islam” counterparts, whether or not they are themselves aware of it. It is no different than the suicide bombers recruited for “militant Islam” and being handled by local intelligence handlers who themselves deeply believe in their divine mission quite oblivious to the reality that they are dancing to the Mighty Wurlitzer’s tune. Unless of course, also like many of their counterparts in the theater of “militant Islam”, they too were psychologically profiled and directly recruited as controlled sleeper assets of the Mighty Wurlitzer a long time ago for later harvesting.
Empiricism has the bad habit of revealing the obvious. It is especially pertinent to observe how this Hamza Yusuf character immediately sprung into prominent action as if on cue in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. When the rest of American news media was blaming “militant Islam” within 15 minutes of 9/11, Hamza Yusuf managed to get his interview published in the San Jose Mercury News in the very first Sunday’s edition after 9/11, September 16, 2001, condemning “militant Islam” with pious indignation. And on September 20, 2001 was in the White House, and seated next to Laura Bush in Congress. And thereafter meeting British leaders selling the empire’s story to Muslims in Britain.
No Trojan Horse agent of the Mighty Wurlitzer could have done more than Hamza Yusuf did – contribute directly to build consensus for invading Afghanistan and the ‘War on Terror’ by driving it from the angle of “moderate Islam”.
It is no accident that each and every prominent proponent of “moderate Islam” and “reform Islam” also promulgates that 9/11 was done by “militant Islam” echoing the core-axiom of empire!
And this is precisely what betrays them, the fact that they are running with the foxes while hunting with the hounds. Otherwise the Hegelian Dialectic would not work!
The message to their own flock is simple but effective, drawn right from Edward Bernays text book on Propaganda quoted at the very beginning of this report, and Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Just as Dr. Joseph Goebbels had a very simple message for corralling the Germans, these Muslim leaders have an equally simple message for their flock adapted from empire’s singular core-axiom. First, in order to refresh one’s memory, this is what is reported in Mein Kampf:
‘The success of any advertisement, whether of a business or political nature, depends on the consistency and perseverance with which it is employed.
In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an excellent example.
It confined itself to a few themes, which were meant exclusively for mass consumption, and it repeated these themes with untiring perseverance.
Once these fundamental themes and the manner of placing them before the world were recognized as effective, they adhered to them without the slightest alteration for the whole duration of the War.
At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its impudent assertiveness. Later on it was looked upon as disturbing, but finally it was believed.
But in England they came to understand something further: namely, that the possibility of success in the use of this spiritual weapon consists in the mass employment of it, and that when employed in this way it brings full returns for the large expenses incurred.
In England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order, whereas with us it represented the last hope of a livelihood for our unemployed politicians and a snug job for shirkers of the modest hero type. …
I learned something that was important at that time, namely, to snatch from the hands of the enemy the weapons which he was using in his reply. I soon noticed that our adversaries, especially in the persons of those who led the discussion against us, were furnished with a definite repertoire of arguments out of which they took points against our claims which were being constantly repeated.
The uniform character of this mode of procedure pointed to a systematic and unified training.
And so we were able to recognize the incredible way in which the enemy’s propagandists had been disciplined, and I am proud to-day that I discovered a means not only of making this propaganda ineffective but of beating the artificers of it at their own work. Two years later I was master of that art.’ [Mein Kampf, Adolph Hitler, Vol. 2, Chapter VI]
Now compare to what is repeated ad nauseam and with great consistency from virtually every “good” Muslim mosque pulpit and from every “good” Muslim institutional soapbox including the most prominent American Muslim civil rights organization CAIR noted earlier, each using their own diction of course to inflict precisely the following Propaganda for “moderate Islam”:
‘it was “militant Islam” which is responsible for 9/11 attacks, these are the “bad” Muslims, we are the “good” Muslims, we don’t do terrorism, we must fight terrorism, we must support our government to fight the militants, and we must practice “moderate Islam” which is the true Islam, our blessed Prophet was a “moderate”, he did not kill innocent peoples, the Qur’an forbids killing innocent people.’ — Propaganda message of “moderate Islam”
Consequently, religion-based as well as secular-based voices of “moderate Islam”, the lofty bearers of this propaganda feast for the “the crowd of simpletons and the credulous”, are immediately effective in corralling the majority of “good” Muslims. They span the full gamut of persuasions from conservatives (Hamza Yusuf et. al.) to reform oriented progressives and seculars (CAIR et. al., Laleh Bakhtiar et. al.). All “good” Muslims end up “United We Stand” with the empire in its perpetual war against “militant Islam” following their respective pied pipers. This propaganda transcends the sectarian divide among the “good” Muslims in the West. This is the dominant characteristic of the vast majority of the ‘United We Stand’ mainstream Muslims.
To draw upon empiricism to validate, observe the “good Muslims” inextricably caught in this Hegelian Dialectic in Muslims against Terrorism (frontpage cached), and watch the rich and famous make Proud to be American Muslims videos to distance themselves from “militant Islam”. Joseph Goebbels would be immensely proud of his legatees. At the peak of hubris, Sieg Heil is the only reality!
The few angry Muslims escaping Sieg Heil like the rest of the few angry citizens, but still caught in the Hegelian Dialectic are corralled by the controlled dissent-space anxiously waiting to welcome them. See Hegelian Dialectic of Dissent below.
The controlled dissent is run very efficiently on a treadmill permitting the angry Muslims along with the rest of the Western public to vent their lungs out shouting in the streets, and their fingers out typing on the internet, before they return back to their jobs Monday morning feeling fresh from the weekend catharsis. The too angry among them who are not so easily placated by “weekend jihad” soon acquire the label “bad” or “terrorist”. There is no escape for them so long as they remain caught in the Hegelian Dialectic.
Please go back a little to the Guardian interview with Hamza Yusuf quoted above and observe the uncanny exactness in the wording which almost mirrors the New York Times’ anointing Noam Chomsky. Between “[Noam Chomsky is] arguably the most important intellectual alive” (New York Times) driving the Left, and “Hamza Yusuf is arguably the west’s most influential Islamic scholar” (Guardian) driving the Muslim Right, both proclaiming “militant Islam” attacked America on 9/11 in great synergy with the White House and the Pentagon, the field is covered.
One heads the manufacturing dissent factory catching those who escape the Hegelian Dialectic of “militant Islam” vs. “moderate Islam”, the other heads the manufacturing consent factory for “moderate Islam” against “militant Islam” beating the imperial drums.
Where you gonna go?
Those few who eventually wisen up to it all and fearlessly exit that Hegelian Dialectic altogether are now attempted to be corralled in warmly welcoming “conspiracy” groups strategically cultivated for exactly this purpose as part of “imperial mobilization” planning. As Cass Sunstein put it in “Conspiracy Theories”, these groups lend “beneficial cognitive diversity” to aid statecraft defocus all the angry energies.
If the Hegelian Dialectic didn’t get all the morally angry people as it did the vast majority of the public diabolically trapped between the false paradigm of “militant Islam” vs. “moderate Islam” and controlled dissent all sharing the empire’s core-axioms, this trap catches the remaining majority. Watch how the most intelligent among this lot soon find themselves in the 9/11 Truth Movement. See Toronto Hearings: A strange cast of characters among 9/11 Truth Leadership.
That treadmill is strategically designed to occupy the remaining morally angry people studying 9/11 mysteries and how the WTC towers came down repeatedly calling for “new investigations”. The “history’s actors” of course, unbeknownst to these bright lads, have already announced that this is precisely what they shall all be kept busy with: “We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” In the meantime, the “history’s actors” have acted again and created “new realities”.
There is no exit from that trap either so long as one is kept occupied with the previous fait accompli leaving the “history’s actors” free to enact new ones!
The aforementioned set of comprehensive fly traps pretty much ensnare what appears to this scribe to be close to ninety nine percent of the nation’s citizenry. About the remaining odd percent (or two), Adolph Hitler had observed in his Mein Kampf: “the value of these [skeptics] lies in their intelligence and not in their numerical strength,”! No one pays any attention to them whatsoever. If they speak, they are first ignored, then reviled, and then made an offer they can’t refuse. As part of “imperial mobilization” planning, statecraft ensured via the Patriot Acts, police state laws, “no fly lists”, etc., that there remained no effective means for ordinary citizens to ever effectively mobilize themselves together on a single focussed goal of derailing “imperial mobilization” and therefore pose any threat whatsoever to their plans.
From Islamofascism to police state was one short jump in this slick game of hegemony!
The exercise of primacy always is. And the role of the Mighty Wurlitzer as we can now appreciate is indispensable across the entire spectrum.
The Hegelian Dialectic Militant Islam vs. Moderate Islam will surely go down in history as among the greatest enablers of war, rivaling and perhaps surpassing both Communism vs. Fascism and Communism vs. Capitalism of the twentieth century. It is their legatee for the twenty-first century. It is already called “World War IV” (see Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces ‘World War IV’). The blood stains accumulated on all the saintly hands enabling it, as of those prosecuting it, won’t be cleansed by all the perfumes of Arabia while they sleep holily in bed! (Shakespeare Macbeth) Fortunate are those who at least experience PTSD and can’t sleep holily in bed (see Letter: A Cure for America’s War Veterans who have fertilized the ‘arc of crisis’ in Muslim blood).
The Hegelian Dialectic Militant Islam vs. Moderate Islam however is still designed to play a multifaceted role beyond the prima facie one of each of its individual components.
The mantra of “reform Islam” is the more pernicious of the two. While “militant Islam” has seditiously enabled police states in the West which all can experience themselves without having to read about it, “moderate Islam” is intended to enable the new world religion for these police states which few among the public are able to apprehend just yet.
Many useful idiots who play their role like actors on stage, some believing in the promise of “moderate Islam”, have little understanding of the entire show, their script only being for Act II. Act I was obviously “militant Islam” in this Hegelian Dialectic.
Acts III and IV which are coming up next after the intermission for which the stage is now being set, is to harvest the calculated subversion of all established religions, specifically the religion of Islam, to pave the way for the introduction of Secular Humanism – the new religion of world Government (see Islam vs. Secular Humanism and World Government).
Full Spectrum Primacy is the underpinning of all power calculus. Be it of the State, just the full title of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s aforementioned book betrays what’s already obvious: “The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”. Or be it of the controlling oligarchy, which is also already obvious, and for which books upon books of respected scholars like Professor Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” disclose their overarching agenda being world government.
Empiricism confirms these facts.
Having now perceptively understood the subtle, almost undetectably precise imperial craftsmanship of Bernard Lewis et. al., which forms the crucial seed for implanting the “doctrinal motivation and intellectual commitment” necessary for sustaining “imperial mobilization” via the Hegelian Dialectic “militant Islam” vs. “moderate Islam”, it should not be surprising to discover that even the steward of public conscience for the West, Noam Chomsky, judged Bernard Lewis to be “just a vulgar propagandist”!
In a revealing interview on CBC, at just about that time:
‘… now, until Bernard Lewis tells us that, and that’s only one piece of a long story, we know that he is just a vulgar propagandist and not a scholar. So yes, as long as we are supporting harsh brutal governments, blocking democracy and development, because of our interest in controlling the oil resources in the region, there will be a campaign of hatred against us!’ — Interview to Evan Solomon, CBC, part-2, minute 5:50, December 9, 2003,
But in furthering our forensic and critical study of the Dynamics of Mantra Creation solely on the anvil of empirical political science, it is even more instructional to observe the omissions and commissions in Noam Chomsky’s own vaunted dissent as “arguably the most important intellectual alive” (NYT). The disease of deception is evidently infectious among that clan.
Noam Chomsky himself continued to echo from the very day of September 11, 2001, and still maintains so in this tenth year of 9/11, that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda carried out that day of infamy upon which all matters ‘War on Terror’ hinge!
Thus, strangely enough, despite all his famous dissent, Noam Chomsky has exactly managed to echo Bernard Lewis’, Samuel Huntington’s, the Pentagon’s, the White House’s, the incumbent as well as all living former presidents of the sole superpower, the Israelis’, and the world Zionists’ collective mantra of “Islamofascists” being the perpetrators of 9/11.
Noam Chomsky is of course, also the most outspoken champion of Wikileaks in his otherwise erudite disagreements with his opposite numbers in the establishment.
All this public fracas of dissent against the establishment is somewhat akin to the American and Russian spies strategically collaborating with each other despite their often antagonist tactical missions, for the greater common good of the military-industrial complexes of both nations during the Cold War. When we perceptively read the works of Anthony Sutton, Carroll Quigley, and W. Cleon Skousen, it becomes obvious that the uber-capitalists and the uber-communists where in fact covertly collaborating at crucial core nexuses despite all their overt WWF wrestling style public antagonisms. Both serving the interests of the same financiers. In other words, at the highest levels of social control, there is evidently no difference of overarching agendas among its seemingly antagonistic players, each one of them merely playing a theatrical public role. Shakespeare aptly dramatized it in As you like it:
‘All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.’
It should now be self-evident that Bernard Lewis and Noam Chomsky together, while seemingly cogent opposites, in fact represent the class of counterpoint tunes of the Mighty Wurlitzer which nicely bookend all public discourse between the artificial bifurcation of Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal, Establishmentarian and Rebel, Totalitarian and Anarchist, Consent and Dissent. It is the two antipodes of a fabricated Hegelian Dialectic to respectively engineer both consent and dissent in order to sustain “imperial mobilization”.
Noam Chomsky himself argues the veracity of this observation in his own erudite manner:
‘The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.’
and yet, he just as willingly participates in it.
Thus, observe that Chomsky too echoes that there is a ‘Muslim Rage’, but instead of it being deemed “irrational” like Bernard Lewis posits in his “vulgar propagandist” scholarship, Noam Chomsky calls it a rational rage, a “blowback” to American foreign policy and the history of American political aggression! See Chomsky’s money minting booklet “911” by Seven Stories Press; and how it was cobbled together in “The Closet Capitalist”, where the Hoover Institution critic observed: “Chomsky’s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term war profiteer. In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand.”
While dissent which retains the core-lies of empire when vehemently critiquing its effects is typical of all prominent controlled assets, in this instance of “arguably the most important intellectual alive”, it would perhaps be more apropos to give it the same epithet that Noam Chomsky anointed Bernard Lewis with. Just to call a spade a spade – and no more.
Who else echoes that same “vulgar propagandist’s” core-lie of empire, of 9/11 being invasion from abroad and the work of “militant Islam”, in deep consonance with Bernard Lewis, the Pentagon, the White House, and the neo-con think-tankers? Surprise, surprise, it is the other patron saint of latter day dissent, Congressman Ron Paul, echoing exactly Noam Chomsky’s theme of 9/11 being a “blowback” by malcontent Muslims. Ron Paul’s absurdities are dismantled in My beef with the stellar congressman Hon. Ron Paul.
As a Muslim, I hope I might be forgiven if I observe some ground floor reality check to put all this specious “blowback” in hegemonic context. I don’t see any such naturally percolating “blowback” rage in any significant tenor in any Muslim country despite what the white man’s burden has done to us worldwide, except perhaps in the three nations militarily occupied by Israel and the United States today, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Even there, all I see are some manufactured “insurgents” being “tickled” into expressing a manufactured rage on demand. This is deconstructed in great detail in the two comprehensive reports Manufacturing Dissent and Insurgency vs. Counter-Insurgency ( http://tinyurl.com/what-is-insurgency ).
Suffice it to expose here this sham of “blowback” very briefly. The Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, openly expressed the empire’s modus operandi of “tickling” terrorists into existence thusly: “We use military operations to excite the enemy, prompting him to respond. In that response we learn so much”. When the poor victims and their unfortunate survivors are thus sufficiently “tickled” with the inconsolable loss of their loved ones under the world’s mightiest superpower’s barbaric “shock and awe”, they become prime harvest for empire’s other long running mantra, “god is on your side”. (See Islam and Knowledge vs. Socialization for details.)
That harvest of malcontents is managed by local intelligence handlers and the Pentagon’s Black-ops, to steer the “tickled” patsies natural lust for justified revenge on the aggressors onto pre-selected local targets. Even running false-flag operations in this way by setting up diversionary suicidal patsies harvested from this crop of malcontents, while the more precision oriented actual hit is handled covertly by the skilled Black-Ops. This is of course the empiricism of all major assassinations of political leaders worldwide – compartmentalized disposable patsies independently working on narrow tasks for a common boss, often unbeknownst to each other. That is the modus operandi to create the terrorist acts – called “insurgency”. That’s the sum total of the “blowback” of vaunted narrators like Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky.
Once the “insurgency” is crafted, the organs of state, the military, the police, the intelligentsia, the media, the pundits, all across the world all naturally focus on the visible terrorist act of these patsies and their poor victims! Since that is all that the public is permitted to see by the Mighty Wurlitzer, the empire’s next move is naturally sanctioned. That is called “counter-insurgency”. Some call it invasion and occupation. That is also the mechanism of the super-terrorism of 9/11 in a nutshell – diversionary tactics employed as shadow play which was propagandized by the Mighty Wurlitzer worldwide, while the WTC towers were expertly and with military precision brought down with controlled demolition of some kind. The intimate dynamics of mid-wifery between insurgency and counter-insurgency can sustain “imperial mobilization” indefinitely!
See Between Imperial Mobilization and Islamofascism, FAQ: What is an Intellectual Negro, and Preface to Prisoners of the Cave for the role played by even the Muslim House Negroes in articulating the massa’s propaganda, vs. the pathetic ground realities among the Muslim masses very patiently, most apathetically, waiting for Allah to bring them out of their misery, respectively.
Returning back to the “vulgar propagandist” (I keep that epithet in quotes deliberately to emphasize the fact that apart from its veracity, it’s also the product of WWF wrestling), we already see the empirical results of the uncannily predictive clairvoyance of America’s and Israel’s greatest establishmentarians concerning ‘Islamic Terror’ which goes by many names including “blowback”.
The fate of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, the entire Middle East, the “arc of crisis” and the “global zone of percolating violence”, all have something real in common today because of such amazing fortune telling by the masters of discourse years in advance: “the peoples of Islam will be the first and greatest victims.” Please refer back to the already mentioned report: Instrumenting Kosovo in the ‘arc of crisis’ and the ‘global zone of percolating violence’.
So, ought the public to take the superlative masters of discourse and the assorted “vulgar propagandists” a tad more seriously when they initially spew new absurdities enroute to successful mantra creation years in advance? And, before its eventual harvesting under the cataclysmic shock-effects of the “new pearl harbor”, makes their predictive boast: “They will not be alone, and many others will suffer with them”, an unalterable grotesque reality?
One of course already observes some of that Bernard Lewis’ sponsored clairvoyant suffering of the innocent in America itself. While its own body-count is minuscule in comparison to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, others experiencing ‘revolutions’ and ‘democracy’ in the Middle East, not to mention PTSD suffered by its veterans which too pales in comparison to what the valiant have wrecked upon the ‘untermenschen’ (see Letter to Editor: PTSD and its Cure), one with eyes wide open substantially notes that:
the American national debt is soaring because of its perpetual ‘War on Terror’ and the financial malfeasance of its financial elite;
its bankruptcies and joblessness have shattered the ‘American Dream’ of its public;
its de-industrialization by having off-shored all its manufacturing and production capacity is at an all time peak;
the mighty superpower is now a police-state the likes of which was hitherto only presaged in fictional narratives like George Orwell’s 1984;
and the once mighty industrial nation may be merged into a larger supra-national regional entity similar to the EU as a consequence of all these crises conditions.
Can one therefore, perceptively not surmise that the deceased Ali Baba’s replacement nemesis will be a Super Ali Baba Plus Plus to complete the job started by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Israeli Intelligence agents’ clairvoyance? What can this new threat possibly be that it will even eclipse Osama Bin Laden in his magical prowess?
Can the public shrewdly anticipate and prepare for the next boogeyman based on the tunes now being played by the Mighty Wurlitzer, rather than be shell-shocked into acquiescence by its phantasmic unveiling? Just as the world was, and still is, shell-shocked into acquiescence due to the Catastrophic Terrorism of 9/11 which, like the Pearl Harbor, inevitably divided our past and our future into ‘before’ and ‘after’.
One often hears it stated in the news and in the Western governments’ increasingly draconian regulations to keep their public safe from terrorists, that 9/11 changed everything. Well, the super 9/11 of the Super Ali Baba Plus Plus so clairvoyantly predicted by George W. Bush, “will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison” (Bush White House, Feb. 13, 2008)!
Can one intelligently not data-mine propaganda itself, in the backdrop of the Mighty Wurlitzer’s unhidden motivations and agendas, to accurately perceive and preempt what’s up next?
The following passage from the 2500 years old Art of War is pertinent backdrop to the aforementioned chutzpah of empire – a zeitgeist in which the scholars of empire announce their intentions brazenly years in advance, while the detractors of empire excel in the ex post facto narrations of what is already a fait accompli after the “history’s actors” have acted and created “new realities”. The instruments of empire award their own antagonists high honors and great accolades for their bold rehearsal and dissection of histories amidst the fawning adulation of all their followers having their new ‘ah hah’ and ‘never again’ moments for the first time in their life. And the cycle repeats again and again for each new act of the “history’s actors”:
‘8. To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.
9. Neither is it the acme of excellence if you fight and conquer and the whole Empire says, “Well done!”
10. To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great strength; to see the sun and moon is no sign of sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is no sign of a quick ear.’
Paying particular attention to item 10., one may conclude that to perceive and anticipate in a timely manner that which is not obvious to others leads to many tactical as well as strategic advantages, both in the battle of hegemony and secrecy, and, in the battle against tyranny. Which is why the public and their lauded dissent chiefs are always, but always, kept busy in idiotic puppetshows by the Machiavelli when it is most essential that they be shrewdly sighted.
Public preemption can be effective in derailing imperial mobilization only BEFORE it becomes a fait accompli. Ex post facto, when the public eventually wakes up to ascertain that it was indeed all a puppetshow, it is inevitably too late to do anything about the matter except to “study” what the “history’s actors” have left behind! Obsessing with the previous fait accompli when dissent chiefs lead the effort, evidently, is also a calculated part of Machiavelli. The principle of temporal urgency in maintaining utmost deception (and secrecy) while “new realities” are being planned, orchestrated, and harvested, was articulated by Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince. The modern day version of this predatory statecraft is the National Security Council Directive NSC 10/2 for creating cover stories and red herrings alongside covert operations. See Anatomy of Conspiracy Theory ( http://tinyurl.com/cognitive-diversity ).
As part of that plan to deflect public attention, those attempting to see through its fog of deception when a fait accompli can still be averted – before missiles have left their silos, before pen has been put to tortuous legalisms to sanction tyranny – are variously labeled as ‘kooks’, ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘delusional’, ‘denier‘, etc., their efforts infiltrated and subverted (as in cointelpro), and their energies defocussed by introducing what’s cynically called “beneficial cognitive diversity” (see Cass Sunstein, and this counterpoint to dissent-chief David Ray Griffin’s “eureka” moment on Cass Sunstein’s “Conspiracy Theories”).
Caption Alien Attack: National Geographic Channel Show Ponders The Possibility of an Alien Attack (video)
The Alien-UFO Agenda is one such future fait accompli in the works which can still be averted by the public becoming rationally informed about the demonic art of the Mighty Wurlitzer. The fact that:
references to UFOs even made it into one of Wikileaks whistleblowing disclosures ;
the fact that the FBI recently made available a 1950 Roswell UFO memo lending “UFOs” a legitimacy in the gullible mind by way of it being held as a supposed “state-secret” for these past sixty years ;
the fact that US military is even playing war-games to interdict UFOs (USAF couldn’t interdict 9/11 airplanes and are therefore determined, one surmises, to not fail against an alien UFO technology that is advanced enough to visit earth from another galaxy) ;
the fact that there is a pertinent office at the United Nations, UNOOSA, with “the plan to make Unoosa the co-ordinating body for dealing with alien encounters [which] will be debated by UN scientific advisory committees and should eventually reach the body’s general assembly”, and a special UN Ambassador has been “tasked with co-ordinating humanity’s response if and when extraterrestrials make contact” ;
and the uptick in other bogus and absurd conversations on Aliens and UFO even appearing in the mainstream media, not to mention its unrelenting repetition in the so called “alternate media” and on the internet ;
all indicate that its unveiling time is likely approaching near.
This too will surely also be launched with “either you are with us, or with the aliens” false dialectics!
If the public can preempt that propaganda by focussing on unraveling the many facets and scenarios on what they Machiavellianly plan to do BEFORE they enact them, the vile psy-ops can surely be defeated BEFORE it becomes the new established “facts” on the ground for the globalists’ coup de grâce: the final restructuring of the planet into world government ( http://tinyurl.com/ftworldgov).
In order to perceptively engage the sophisticated finesse behind all this psychological mind-fck before it becomes fait accompli, please see: Letter to Kerry Cassidy on the Alien-UFO Agenda and The Agenda Behind Aliens and UFOs – A Hegelian Mind-Fck Part-II ( http://tinyurl.com/Aliens-UFOs ).
In order to perceptively comprehend the psychological basis of such absurd and fabricated threats which instill existential fears:
whose import to enabling “imperial mobilization” was clearly envisaged by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1996 in The Grand Chessboard:
“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is defense spending), and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (pgs. 35-36) ;
whose raison d’être as the primary method for advancing “the “national interest” by means of organized violence”, was taken as axiomatic in the 1963-64 secret study reported in the 1967 book The Report From Iron Mountain:
“It must be emphasized that the precedence of a society’s war-making potential over its other characteristics is not the result of the “threat” presumed to exist at any one time from other societies. This is the reverse of the basic situation; “threats” against the “national interest” are usually created or accelerated to meet the changing needs of the war system. … The military, or ostensible function of the war system requires no elaboration; it serves simply to defend or advance the “national interest” by means of organized violence. It is often necessary for a national military establishment to create a need for its unique powers—to maintain the franchise, so to speak. And a healthy military apparatus requires “exercise,” by whatever rationale seems expedient, to prevent its atrophy.” (pgs. 31,33) ;
whose utility for effectively embarking on the “military transformation” required to achieve “full spectrum dominance” that wasn’t “stillborn”, was openly declared in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses:
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. … Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn” (pgs. 51,58) ;
and whose necessity for rapidly transforming an entire society, nation, or the whole world, in the direction desired by the controlling oligarchy, was even discovered in the 1908 minute books of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace by the Congressional Reece Committee investigator Norman Dodd in 1954, and related by him in an interview before his death in 1982, The Hidden Agenda of Tax Exempt Foundations for World Government:
“We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity. So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: ‘How do we involve the United States in a war?’” ;
There is a lot to learn here on deliberate Machiavellian social engineering that is not taught even in the best universities in America (and the West), nor ever makes an appearance on CNN Headline News (and Time or Newsweek)!
What we are speaking of here, of engineering the consent of the masses to get them to love their own servitude, far transcends the corporate advertising and marketing techniques taught in MBA programs which were principally pioneered by Edward Bernays. These techniques of course also attempt to bypass the cognitive mind and target manipulating the subconscious mind directly to sell a product, a lifestyle, or an idea.
However, while most recognize that advertising is a multi-billion dollar business and accept it as a matter of for-profit corporate modernity, few are aware of an order of magnitude more resources being perversely spent by tax-exempt foundations, and the tax-payers (quite unbeknownst to themselves of course), on far more diabolical aspects of social engineering for
“getiing people to consent to what is happening to them. Well, it seems to me that the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people actually to love their servitude!” (please refer to Aldous Huxley quoted at the very beginning)
Advertising Age’s 2008 Marketer of the Year award to President Obama for his election campaign of the “Change” mantra, and the Nobel committee’s awarding him the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize testify to the empiricism of this observation. The American nation easily bought that fiction of “Change”, which was once again underscored by President Obama bombing Libya on the same day in 2011 that his predecessor bombed Iraq in 2003!
How did the American public buy that fiction? Once again, please refer back to the very beginning of this report and to Edward Bernays: “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”
Only a tiny handful in America did not buy that fiction. Among those handful who defied the wisdom of the entire American nation and their controlled dissent chiefs, see: Not-Voting is a ‘YES’ vote to Reject a Corrupt System which thrives on the facade of Elections and Democracy! And Mr. Obama – The Post Modern Coup.
This ignorance and gullibility among the college-educated modern public is despite the fact that Western academe is at the forefront of the vast majority of behavior control and social engineering research studies, often funded by, or in collaboration with, Western intelligence, military, and private tax-exempt foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and Ford Foundation. The highly compartmentalized nature of such research ensures that few students and professors in on the ground breaking studies into human behavior can ever glean the bigger picture towards which they work so diligently to respectively earn their Ph.D. and research funding! Those few who do comprehend are invariably engaged with empire in the largely unhidden orchestration of social engineering. Or, are quickly recruited as agents and assets of the Mighty Wurlitzer.
The Mighty Wurlitzer has no limit for its territory. The newsmedia, entertainment, academe, political parties, religious institutions, think-tanks, private foundations, government-funded organizations, and non-governmental organization (NGOs) alike, all house its agents and assets. And they each play their own tunes on their own specialized instruments under the supreme conduction of the Mighty Wurlitzer. The most notable among these is religion. Although the layman does not normally associate the pastor, rabbi, alim, mullah, swami, etc., with propaganda organs of state, but religion is in fact the most affected by the Mighty Wurlitzer – all throughout history. If we just reflect on the fact that more than three quarters of the world’s people espouse some faith, the easiest cognitive infiltration and behavior control is directly through faith. The report: Islam and Knowledge vs. Socialization ( http://tinyurl.com/Islam-Socialization ), and the following challenge to a pious Muslim cleric who issued a 600-page Fatwa on Terrorism in the Service of Empire ( http://tinyurl.com/Fatwa-Terrorism-Qadri ), indubitably illustrate this universal fact.
Today, fact and fiction have been merged to such an alarming degree with adept perception control that to be able to rationally separate them, to tell what is mere imagery of the Mighty Wurlitzer vs. the actual interconnected causal reality (cause and effect) of statecraft, can be as uncongenial to the cognitive mind as depicted by Plato for the prisoners bred in the underground cave since birth. The fact that the most brilliant minds remain unable to tell that 9/11 was an ‘Operation Canned Goods’ even ten years into its vile enactment while America descends into a police-state in presumed reaction to it, demonstrates that it is not the brain hardware which is malfunctioning, but the brain software!
The inculcation of belief in authority figures and “experts” has reached pandemic proportions in the West. Indoctrination is today perhaps the greatest public plague afflicting the mightiest superpower on earth, a direct consequence of “dumbing down” the public in the name of higher education to craft self-obsessed economic widgets, narrow specialists, and superficial generalists for the Technetronic Era. The continued success of the Mighty Wurlitzer in “persuading” the public to accept absurdities to get them ‘United We Stand’ singularly relies on, and feeds off, this aspect of modernity. See The Ivy League Morons Syndrome. Also see the deconstruction of Bernard de Mandeville’s “fable of the bees” in Response to ‘Why I’m leaving Harvard’ and in Preamble to Palestine: The Struggle Forward.
There is an undeniable categorical imperative before the Western peoples today. With the escalating belligerence towards Iran and the strategic dismantling of Pakistan palpably on the visible horizon, will the profoundly innocent of knowledge in the West allow themselves to be fooled once again into more criminal aggression upon civilian populations in the name of ‘War on Terror‘ ( http://tinyurl.com/what-is-war-on-terror )? See: Postscript ‘War on Terror’ is not about ‘Islamofascism’ – Please get with the real agenda you people! ( http://tinyurl.com/what-is-war-on-terror-NOT ).
Or, will the people choose to not be (willingly) deceived by the Mighty Wurlitzer’s many ruses at every level which continually justify the core axioms of “imperial mobilization” by way of deception? See Peoples’ Guilt and America’s Profound Shame ( http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/preface.html#Americas-Profound-Shame ).
It is precisely to invoke that acquiescence to premeditated fait accompli that Zbigniew Brzezinski self-servingly quoted in the opening pages of his seminal 1970 book Between Two Ages – America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, the following specious rationalization for the turmoil to be purposely inflicted upon the ‘lesser’ humanity. The diabolically fabricated Hegelian Dialectic as the means to usher in one-world government, and attributing that manufactured zeitgeist to just the nature of transformation between two ages (for which nothing could be done about since the human misery which it entailed was natural and inevitable):
“Human life is reduced to real suffering, to hell, only when two ages, two cultures and religions overlap. . . . There are times when a whole generation is caught in this way between two ages, two modes of life, with the consequence that it loses all power to understand itself and has no standard, no security, no simple acquiescence.” —HERMANN HESSE, Steppenwolf (pg. 7, book PDF).
As an establishmentarian hectoring hegemon, Brzezinski again invoked the same sort of self-serving rationalization to perpetuate American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. He began his subsequent 1996 book The Grand Chessboard with the chauvinist sentence: “Hegemony is as old as mankind.” Thus, by the logic of it, making the rest of the book a recipe for the exercise of America’s uniquely unchallenged global power, and “especially its capacity for military intimidation”, as the most natural human legacy for any supremacist nation to pursue. Nothing could, or ought, to be done about that predatory instinct for organized violence since “Hegemony is as old as mankind.” And therefore, Brzezinski naturally proffered in his chauvinist conclusion, “In brief, the U.S. Policy goals must be un-apologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer,…” (Ibid., pg. 215; see Prisoners of the Cave, Chapter 1 ).
The report Of Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order, examines how that specious recipe book for America’s predatory primacy, as syntactically sugared war-mongering as it is, is itself only half the truth. As the Jewish proverb suggests, ‘a half truth is a full lie’. And as the Mighty Wurlitzer knows, in order to be effective, the lie is different at every level.
Contrary to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s erudite prose which underlies the many compositions of the Mighty Wurlitzer, as the generation caught between two ages on the Grand Chessboard, we, the bearers of Human life, have neither lost the power to understand, nor lost the power to overturn the advocated simple acquiescence to artificially induced transition period of real suffering. That understanding, and overturning, is the raison d’être for this document.
This is an abridged version. For further study guide please refer to the Further Study Section in Note on Mighty Wurltizer ( http://tinyurl.com/mightywurlitzer ).