Hijacking the word 'Islam' for Mantra Creation

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

Taking a Deeper Look into the Dynamics of Mantra Creation: Islamofascism

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 ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ? Holy Qur'an, Surah Al-Maida 5:3)

Indeed. Islam is the name of a religion, “deen” ( ???????????? ?????? ).

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 ???????? ???????????? ???????????? ???? ?????? ????????????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ????????? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?????????? 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” ( ???????????? ). The Muslims throughout the world are referred to as “Muslim Umma”, or to be exact in the transliteration, “Ummat-e-Muslima” ( ??????? ?????????? ).

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 Hegelian Dialectic Militant Islam vs. Moderate Islam

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 ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ? 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.

This article is abridged from: Anatomy and Architecture of Modern Propaganda Techniques for Psychological Warfare. For unresolved references in the text please visit the original report: ( http://tinyurl.com/mightywurlitzer )