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
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 (Council on
American Islamic Relations) 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 (which incidentally underscores the
observation that the name Council
on American Islamic Relations sounds awfully
similar to the Council on Public Relations founded by Edward Bernays
to recast systems of propaganda into a new respectable light as
“public relations” after World War II, the pathetic
report is evidently serving the same function) 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”.
Caption
The Hegelian Dialectic side A: Reviling Islam (Islam is of
The Devil by Pastor Terry Jones)
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 in 1996: “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.” 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.
Furthermore,
also recall the previously quoted clairvoyant statements made by the
so called Terrorism Study Group. These too
lend prima facie evidence for how the Mighty Wurlitzer
premeditatively harnessed the
'searing' or 'molding' event of 9/11, the “new
Pearl Harbor”, to successfully capitalize
on the pre-implanted public myths of Islamofascism to launch the
perpetual “War on Terror”. For, in all that
confusion surrounding the event of Catastrophic Terrorism, fait
accompli of the despotic response by the sole superpower was
automatically seeded because “Like Pearl Harbor, such an
event [divides] our past and future into a ‘before’ and
‘after.’” Now anything goes because
“what is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
revolutionary times”,
including launching aggressive wars against innocent nations, and
turning one's own nation into a police-state. Ex post facto, print
all about it in the New York Times!
Thus,
also recall the previously mentioned chutzpah of their mea culpae, ex
post facto, led by the Iraq Study Group in 2005 blaming “intelligence
failure” for the missing WMDs in Iraq, and the New York
Times in 2008 blaming the Pentagon, see Pentagon's
Message Machine
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,
April 20, 2008. More such revelations will continue to occur as world
government is incrementally cemented. Someday, even sixth graders
will learn about it with a tad more honesty than the public is
permitted to know today, just as school children candidly learn today
about the genocide of the native American Indians on their own land.
What
had appeared to casual observers who had been interested enough to
read this stuff before the events of 9/11, to be only academic
psychoanalyses of the American public,
became the actual reality of “imperial mobilization”
exactly as was so boldly foretold in these public writings.
It
is also useful to recall at this point that the US Chief prosecuting
counsel at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson, had declared on hearing the
feigned protestations from the Nazi leadership on trial that they
didn't know anything about Hitler's plans for Lebensraum:
“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
Thus,
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, the American
Mein Kampfs written by Jewish hands in Muslim blood to launch
“imperial mobilization”, than one can describe the
color of a tree without describing its first cause, the DNA of the
tree.
Don't
these scholars know their own literature? Can't they judge
motivation? Can they not add two plus two to equal four? Will they
also brazenly feign on their own day of reckoning that they were just
highly paid ignorant morons unaware of the new Mein Kampfs
rather than the learned scholars they are now presented to be?
Only
vulgar propagandists and traffickers in truth will hide the causal
linkages between pre-planned doctrines and
the unfolding reality. That is a crime against the people! And only
fools and useful idiots among them will pretend to not understand
that crime. And that is the overarching success of the Mighty
Wurlitzer. The myth of militant Islam has been successfully
cast into perceived reality for the public.
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).
Caption
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, a fiery Muslim cleric from San Jose,
California, convert from Christianity, founder of Zaytuna College in
Berkeley to teach “moderate Islam” to American Muslims,
attending George W. Bush's presidential address to US Congress on
September 20, 2001, seated immediately behind British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, American First Lady Laura Bush, and American Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, giving standing ovation to the American
president's announcement of perpetual war
on “militant Islam” (Photograph source CSPAN).
How does a convert Muslim cleric get such
rapid security clearance that within just 9 days of the most
catastrophic terrorism on America's soil, he is seated with the most
powerful rulers of the world – and applauding their waging of
barbaric wars upon Muslim nations? Only a long cultivated
intelligence asset of the Mighty Wurlitzer for cognitive infiltration
of the American and Western Muslim Mind!
That manufactured product, in 2012 was graciously
anointed 42nd among “The World's 500 Most
Influential Muslims”, two places ahead of even Seyyed Hossein
Nasr, by some idiotic think-tank setup among Muslims as their House
Nigger drum-beater for the
Mighty Wurlitzer.
Caption
Pakistani house niggers,
Imran Khan and Tahir ul Qadri, seated on the massa's table at
the Western super financial elite's World Economic Forum annual
meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 27,
2011. (Photograph source: a reader submission) How did these two
political “no-ops” of least significance get invited to
world economic forum for the white man's recognition? They are
neither financiers, nor industrialists, and nor do they hold any
economic or financial ministerial position
within the government of Pakistan. Yes, as Western intelligence
assets managed by their local counterpart, both are being rewarded
for selling the massa's pitch on “moderate Islam” (even
in their occasional controlled dissent with
the Pakistani establishment which is most dutifully towing the
massa's full line on “militant Islam”). And Tahir ul
Qadri specifically for his “600
page Fatwa on Terrorism”.
Both house niggers artfully
retain the core axioms of massa on “militant Islam”
to continually push the envelope of the Hegelian Dialectic forward as
a self-fulfilling prophecy!
Caption
The Hegelian Dialectic side B: Reforming Islam
“... Quran translated by an American woman. This modern,
inclusive translation refutes past translations that have been used
to justify violence against women.” (The Sublime
Quran By Laleh Bakhtiar
http://tinyurl.com/Critique-Laleh-Bakhtiar-Zahir)
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
, http://tinyurl.com/Critique-Laleh-Bakhtiar-Zahir ). 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
http://tinyurl.com/Critique-Laleh-Bakhtiar-Zahir
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
the propaganda of Islamofascism to domestic
police state was one short jump in this slick game of “imperial
mobilization”.
The
exercise of primacy always is. And the role of the Mighty Wurlitzer,
as we can now appreciate, is indispensable across the entire spectrum
of social engineering to get people to consent to what is happening
to them! Please refer back to the statements made by Aldous Huxley in
his talk in 1961 quoted above: '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!'
The
perpetual 'war on terror' is not mere happenstance and over-reaction
to catastrophic terrorism as some of empire's leading detractors too
innocent of knowledge gullibly argue. The evidence presented
here demonstrates it to be diabolically premeditated in no less a
measure than the Third Reich's march to Lebensraum after the
full disclosure of their intent in Mein
Kampf. In both cases, the public had to be
mobilized since “Democracy is inimical to imperial
mobilization.” In our case, Lebensraum is world
government, and as reasoned by Bertrand
Russell, “World government could only be kept in being by
force.” (Bertrand Russell, Impact of Science on Society
Ch. 2, pg. 37)
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. As previously noted, it is already called
“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
Zahir Ebrahim, 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).
This
focussed and narrow analysis is adapted from the broad report on The
Mighty Wurlitzer: Anatomy
and Architecture of Modern Propaganda Techniques for Psychological
Warfare,
first published May 31,
2009. For unresolved references in the text please visit the
full report: (
http://tinyurl.com/mightywurlitzer
)
For
an in-depth understanding of How Islam and its singular scripture,
the Holy Qur'an, have been hijacked for “imperial
mobilization”, see the book: Hijacking
The Holy Qur'an and Islam.
Short
URL:
http://tinyurl.com/hijackingislam
Source
URL:
http://faith-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/08/hijacking-word-islam-mantra-creation.html
Alternate
Source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/08/hijacking-word-islam-mantra-creation.html
Mirror
URL:
http://humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/hijacking-word-islam-for-mantra-creation-zahirebrahim/
Zahir
Ebrahim, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary matters,
grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at UET, MIT, and Stanford,
engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley
(http://tinyurl.com/zahir-patents),
and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden
2003 book of protest, written in the aftermath of 9/11, was rejected
by countless publishers and can be read on the web at
http://PrisonersoftheCave.org.
His prolific writings may be read at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org.
His extended bio at:
http://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/bio/
First
Published May 31, 2009 | Last updated 12/22/2012 12:00:09
8153
Hijacking
the word 'Islam' for Mantra Creation By Zahir Ebrahim 21/21
