Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
“I use the term ‘Mighty Wurlitzer’ as a metaphor to pluralistically refer to the same message-machine, i.e., the intelligence apparatus for manufacturing consent and controlling dissent, and its concomitant conscious manipulation of peoples’ thoughts, feelings, actions and in-actions, in order to serve the primacy interests of the ruling-elite. The latter are, invariably, also the de facto owners of the complete messaging-system now even more globally ubiquitous than when Frank Wisner played the world for a fool.”
Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, began his seminal 1928 book simply titled Propaganda, with these ominous words:
‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.’ — Edward Bernays, 1928, pg.1, Propaganda
Aldous Huxley, on the 30th anniversary of his own seminal 1931 allegorical novel Brave New World, made the following dreadful observations in the very opening segment of his talk on the Ultimate Revolution upon which mankind and modernity are perilously perched:
‘You can do everything with bayonets except sit on them! If you are going to control any population for any length of time you must have some measure of consent. It’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion. An element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them. Well, it seems to me that the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people actually to love their servitude! This is the, it seems to me the ultimate in malevolent revolution shall we say.’ — Aldous Huxley, 1962 speech at UC Berkeley, minute 04:06
In order to understand how the comprehension of both Edward Bernays and Aldous Huxley, though both long dead, still manifests itself in these times, we must begin with the Mighty Wurlitzer.
What is the ‘Mighty Wurlitzer’?
It used to be the honorific of Frank Wisner, the first chief of political warfare for the Central Intelligence Agency, used to describe the C.I.A.’s plethora of front organizations and newsmedia stooges that he was capable of playing (like a great organ with many keyboards) for synthesizing any propaganda tune that was needed for the day. See Operation Mockingbird ( www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm ) (PDF).
The fact that such an omnipresent Message-Machine is not ancient history but very much current affairs, is underscored by this NYT headline “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand”, Sunday, April 20, 2008 (tinyurl.com/6qhgfg ). Also see Jessica Lynch Media Myth-Making in Iraq War during Operation “Iraqi Freedom”.
Therefore, today, I use the term ‘Mighty Wurlitzer’ as a metaphor to pluralistically refer to the same message-machine, i.e., the intelligence apparatus for manufacturing consent and controlling dissent, and its concomitant conscious manipulation of peoples’ thoughts, feelings, actions and in-actions, in order to serve the primacy interests of the ruling-elite. The latter are, invariably, also the de facto owners of the complete messaging-system now even more globally ubiquitous than when Frank Wisner played the world for a fool.
This ‘grand organ’ is now able to even more effectively synthesize, implant, and reinforce, all the right set of beliefs (myths) among the entire world’s public – by suitably combining ‘events’ with imaginative ‘expos’ writing – which appropriately primes the world populations to acquiesce to the oligarchic agendas. While playing this orchestra is now an integral part of all state-craft, its major musical themes are entirely determined by the behind the scenes owners of the system. While some might refer to the underlying techniques as propaganda and psy-ops, ‘Mighty Wurlitzer’ singularly captures the messaging-system controlled under a unified purpose of command which is both highly compartmentalized and cellularized. Only the Mighty Wurlitzer knows the entire tune.
What this means is that not all who willingly cooperate with the Mighty Wurlitzer in synchronistically humming its themes are knowingly being purveyors of its myths and deception. Many of its most shrill echoers are often well intentioned functionaries who are fed different motivating myths at different levels in the hierarchy – sometimes the lie is different at every level – such that it suitably motivates each according to their own predilection, professional station, and mission statement.
The Mighty Wurlitzer operates on the core premise which has been empirically shown to psychologically motivate most human action. That premise was elegantly captured in the following insightful observation made by the so called “Terrorism Study Group”, that
“‘Public Assumptions’ Shape Views of History: Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community. The sources for such presumptions are both personal (from direct experience) and vicarious (from books, movies, and myths).”
Successfully implanting such presumptions and pre-suppositions among any group is to motivate its overall actions in accordance with those implanted beliefs. Thus, many intelligent peoples for whom it is otherwise inexplicable to understand why they persist in ‘United We Stand’ with absurdities, are motivated to react sympathetically to those absurdities.
To barely catch a glimpse of how it’s partially done, the following description by Col. Fletcher Prouty from the Preface to the first edition of his 1973 book “The Secret Team” is instructive (PDF book):
‘There is another category of writer and self-proclaimed authority on the subjects of secrecy, intelligence, and containment. This man is the suave, professional parasite who gains a reputation as a real reporter by disseminating the scraps and “Golden Apples” thrown to him by the great men who use him. This writer seldom knows and rarely cares that many of the scraps from which he draws his material have been planted, that they are controlled leaks, and that he is being used, and glorified as he is being used, by the inside secret intelligence community.
Allen Dulles had a penchant for cultivating a number of such writers with big names and inviting them to his table for a medieval style luncheon in that great room across the hall from his own offices in the old CIA headquarters on the hill overlooking Foggy Bottom. Here, he would discuss openly and all too freely the same subjects that only hours before had been carefully discussed in the secret inner chambers of the operational side of that quiet Agency. In the hands of Allen Dulles, “secrecy” was simply a chameleon device to be used as he saw fit and to be applied to lesser men according to his schemes. It is quite fantastic to find people like Daniel Ellsberg being charged with leaking official secrets simply because the label on the piece of paper said “top secret,” when the substance of many of the words written on those same papers was patently untrue and no more than a cover story. Except for the fact that they were official lies, these papers had no basis in fact, and therefore no basis to be graded top secret or any other degree of classification. Allen Dulles would tell similar cover stories to his coterie of writers, and not long thereafter they would appear in print in some of the most prestigious papers and magazines in the country, totally unclassified, and of course, cleverly untrue.
In every case, the chance for complete information is very small, and the hope that in time researchers, students, and historians will be able to ferret out truth from untruth, real from unreal, and story from cover story is at best a very slim one. Certainly, history teaches us that one truth will add to and enhance another; but let us not forget that one lie added to another lie will demolish everything. This is the important point. Consider the past half century. How many major events — really major events — have there been that simply do not ring true? How many times has the entire world been shaken by alarms of major significance, only to find that the events either did not happen at all, or if they did, that they had happened in a manner quite unlike the original story?’
Coldly implicit in Col. Prouty’s afore-quoted empirical statement: “and the hope that in time researchers, students, and historians will be able to ferret out truth from untruth, real from unreal, and story from cover story is at best a very slim one”, is the Machiavellian notion of sewing faits accomplis in current affairs by straight-jacketing all public discourse in deception, and leaving the ferreting out of ‘truth’ to future generation of scholars and historians when separating myths from the calculus of hegemony can at best only be a bogus academic exercise entirely irrelevant to reversing the faits accomplis already sewn. See Convince People of Absurdities and get them Acquiescing to Atrocities: The Enduring Power of Machiavellian Political Science ( tinyurl.com/historys-actors ). Also see Unlayering the Middle East War Agenda: Making Sense of Absurdities ( tinyurl.com/unpeeling-lies ).
Wikileaks and the Mighty Wurlitzer driving Imperial Mobilization
A pertinent example of Col. Fletcher Prouty’s fabricated leaks noted above, is the Wikileaks’ July 2010 disclosures of ‘The Afghanistan Papers’ which revealed nothing new.
Wikileaks has always been a rather transparent Mighty Wurlitzer ops. It is trivial to see through the absurdity of its existence despite it promoting itself as being a sort of watchdog upon the empire, and therefore, ostensibly, being inimical to its unbridled quest for “full spectrum dominance” – just like Al Jazeera television based in Qatar, which too, absurdly enough, is permitted to function unhindered in the same nation as America’s CENTCOM headquarters. Would it not be trivial for an armed to the teeth National Security State to take-out either apparatus rather trivially? And that may happen once the useful idiots have outlived their utility, for he who sups with the devil must have a long spoon!
The reason each is allowed to function is of course social engineering, the sine qua non for waging modern warfare upon civilian populations by way of deception. It spans the entire gamut of engineering consent, from mantra creation in the mainstream and diabolically controlling dissent in order to control all opposition, to actually fabricating the visible pretexts which can naturally ripen the conditions for the mantra of “clash of civilizations” to be called real before the Western public in order to sustain the otherwise untenable “imperial mobilization”. Zbigniew Brzezinski had most succinctly summed up this motivation in his book The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives: “Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization”.
How can one tell manufactured reportage and fabricated leaks from the real stuff? How can one see through the Mighty Wurlitzer?
As daunting as it might appear to the mainstream television watcher, it is in fact rather straightforward for those unencumbered by blind faith in governments and its statecraft. Just look for the core-lies and unquestioned axioms of empire that are typically retained in the “leaks” and reportage which, in order to sound credible, often openly expose what is mostly already known anyway or judiciously employ some variation of “Limited Hangout” wrapped in a veneer of dissent, ‘freedom of the press’, and often accompanied by the facade of angst and opposition from the state.
Furthermore, look for some of the lauded dissent names rushing to support the Limited Hangout – just as it was with Daniel Ellsberg for his infamous Pentagon Papers – to afford a veneer of legitimacy to the whistleblowing revelations of supposed state-secrets having caused some great harm to the state. The extravagance enacted in the mainstream media, alternately making heroes of the whistleblowers and demonizing them, is a giveaway to the circus show being enacted for plebeian consumption. For, it matters not which side one takes, as both sides are patently false, crafted of calculated omissions and half-truths that retain core-lies, right out of the text book of the Technique of Infamy : invent two lies and keep the public busy debating which of them is true!
The role of crafty omissions in fabricating propaganda was best captured by Aldous Huxley in his Preface to Brave New World thusly:
‘The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be made as effective as the negative.’ — Aldous Huxley, Preface (circa 1946) to Brave New World, 1931, Harper, pg. 11
To uncover omissions in a discourse is very difficult for the public who do not often have command over the domain in which the falsehoods are being perpetuated. As the psychological insight already quoted above from the Terrorism Study Group betrays, “’Public Assumptions’ Shape Views of History. Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” Which is why inculcating ignorance, especially political-historical ignorance pertaining to international relations, and being trusting of authority figures and the state, are the pre-requisites for any vile propaganda to succeed! A well-bred lack of skepticism to authority figures, whether to mainstream leaders in politics and to experts in scientific disciplines, or to dissenting chiefs playing controlled opposition, thus becomes the heart of social engineering.
This surfeit of blind trust in authority is what is ultimately harvested by the Mighty Wurlitzer. For a skeptical public, the tunes of the Mighty Wurlitzer would fall on very deaf ears and public governance for private agendas would be well-nigh impossible in democratic nations. This is qualitatively no different than the power exercised by the religious clergy upon their faithful flock in any religion. Except that modernity has perniciously replaced them with multi-faceted secular clergies, the “experts”, each demanding obedience from its own ‘United We Stand’ trusting flock in all aspects of modern life.
This is also why “leaking” information from “experts” and “insiders” commands such a premium in Machiavellian democratic statecraft. When used judiciously so as not to dilute its impact, it can herd the flock in pretty much any direction that is desired.
As further empirically evidenced in the forensic analysis presented here, these so called whistleblowing of leaky buckets also succeed in accomplishing two important elements of statecraft:
- vicariously reinvigorate in the short-term public memory, the already established-by-fiat facts and core-axioms of empire;
- establish new convenient facts on the ground which are subsequently accepted as revealed gospel truths because of the already established thought-stream by the scholars of empire that when something is held in secret or is classified and subsequently declassified, or is prematurely leaked to the public, that it must contain some genuine “state secrets”, and never red herrings. Such thought-streams enable the directives of NSC 10/2 for plausible deniability (and those like it which we do not know about) to be trivially impressed upon the public mind (see Anatomy of Conspiracy Theory). These revelations of presumed “state-secrets” subsequently become the new unquestioned backdrops for both state policies and public discourses – the new “doctrinal motivations” – with copious help from the Mighty Wurlitzer’s refined machinery.
This enables the successful deployment of pre-planned policy prescriptions which craftily impel the various incantations of hegemony forward in baby-steps. Both, domestically by incrementally clamping down hard on rising discontent in the name of “national security”, and internationally by continuing to wage unpopular wars of preemption upon the ‘untermenschen’. The infernal enemy has now been (re)confirmed to exist (despite popular skepticism) since even empire’s own henchmen in their secret documents also affirm that belief (sic!). Speak of self-servingly suffering from a incestuously self-reinforced “crippled epistemology”!
Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1996 book The Grand Chessboard, un-abashedly argued the need for such invigorations of the public mind in the following majestic words, betraying his immense knowledge of Machiavellian statecraft’s reliance on social engineering:
“Public opinion polls suggest that only a small minority (13 percent) of Americans favor the proposition that ‘as the sole remaining superpower, the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems’. … Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. …. More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification.” (page 211 and onwards, PDF book)
The diabolical utility of planting of “‘Public Assumptions’ [that] Shape Views of History” and therefore of current affairs, as the “doctrinal motivation” which can create “intellectual commitment”, and is rewarded by “patriotic gratification” , in this ‘War on Terror’ against the vile Militant Islam’s torch bearers, the Islamofascists, cannot escape the careful reader’s attention.
Predictably, with rising skepticism among the public on the utility of pursuing endless wars against illusive enemies that is making their own nation go bankrupt, more “harmful leaks” will occur, but understandably none which are actually substantial. Like, blowing the lid on 9/11 as an inside job, directly naming the top beneficiaries who shorted the Airline stocks raking in billions, or revealing how BBC came to report the demolition of WTC-7 a full 20 minutes before it actually transpired, never mind lending confirmation to any of the forensic detective work by independent researchers from the debris of 9/11, etceteras. And the main leaker du jour, Mr. patsy Julian Assange, like Mr. patsy Lee Harvey Oswald before him, will be sacrificed, perhaps with a new ‘lone gunmen’ enactment, or perhaps juridically, to lend the hoopla even more public respectability. Also see Dismantling the Fiction of ‘Former’ and ‘Ex’ Intelligence – Zahir Ebrahim’s Response to Philip Giraldi.
It’s the exact same recipe as is used by all the other fabricated and controlled dissent assets of empire when they are not outright spinning patent lies, for spinning half-truths requires far more brilliance. One can already see the main dissent-chiefs of the West, like the venerable professor Noam Chomsky, anointed by the New York Times as “arguably the most important intellectual alive”, and the distinguished Daniel Ellsberg, excitedly supporting these Wikileaks exposés as if something ethereal was “revealed in the Sinai”.
It is not for nothing that James Jesus Angleton, Head of CIA Counter Intelligence 1954-1974, is quoted in the 1992 BBC-2 Documentary on Operation Gladio: “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State”. See: Angleton (1917 – 1987). Manufacturing Dissent with controlled opposition is an indispensable core construct of that very statecraft of deception. See: ‘Manufacturing Dissent: Weapons of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science‘.
With the preceding backdrop for overarching context, let’s examine what I believe has been accomplished by Wikileaks in its service to empire’s “War on Terrorism”. Please see “What is War on Terror?” ( tinyurl.com/what-is-war-on-terror ) before proceeding further if you are only familiar with its rational insanity in empire’s Newspeak. Meaning, the ‘War on Terror’ is not irrational. It is firmly rooted in the rational political science of “imperial mobilization”.
The core-lies retained in the Wikileaks’ July 2010 disclosures – which I call ‘the Afghanistan Papers’ – is to once again reaffirm that there is a real nemesis called “Osama Bin Laden”, that the “war on terror” is real, that it is being inflicted upon the West from Pakistan-Iran nexus, and to re-substantiate the handoff of former President George W. Bush’s clairvoyance to the Obama Administration that “If another September 11 style attack is being planned, it probably is being plotted in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan”! That, when such a “planned” attack transpires, it “will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison”. See: ‘Bin Laden’: Key enabler of “imperial mobilization” and nuclear attack on Iran-Pakistan ( print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/04/binladen-keyenabler-nuclearattack.html ).
The successful handoff of “imperial mobilization” to Pakistan and Iran, now further sprightly underscored by Wikileaks’ documents, is once again demonstrated by President Obama’s Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s July 2010 remark to the BBC as quoted by Reuters: “There are still additional steps that we are asking and expecting the Pakistanis to take. But there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that should an attack against the United States be traced to be Pakistani, it would (have) a very devastating impact on our relationship”. And that is merely just another echo from the Obama Administration of what the Pakistanis themselves have been made to parrot the past 9 years, as demonstrated by its own Ambassador’s remark in 2008:
‘[On] Wednesday, a media report quoted Pakistan’s envoy to Washington as saying that US leaders had warned Islamabad that if the United States suffered an attack that was traced back to Pakistan Washington would retaliate. “Those (statements) have been made,” Ambassador Hussain Haqqani told editors and reporters at The Washington Post. “We want to make sure that it doesn’t come to that.”’ — DAWN, June 12, 2008
To show Pakistan’s unflinching willingness to do as much more as was asked, the Ambassador of Pakistan had further stated in an interview to Reuters in 2008:
‘Pakistan would attack Osama bin Laden the moment it had reliable intelligence on the Al Qaeda leader’s whereabouts, Ambassador Husain Haqqani said on Wednesday. Haqqani also said he was confident Pakistan could help foil any Al Qaeda plans to attack the United States, although he did not know of any right now. “A cooperative effort between all the allies, and that includes Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States and NATO – I think we can thwart any potential plans for an attack,” Haqqani said in an interview with Reuters.
He said Pakistani intelligence had helped defeat many of the “several dozen” Al Qaeda plots detected worldwide since the September 11, 2001, attacks, but government officials knew of no immediate threats to the United States. Haqqani said Pakistan would act on its own against Al Qaeda if necessary. “If Pakistan, Afghanistan or the United States had specific intelligence on the location of Osama bin Laden, they would have acted on it. No reservations would have come in the way of action on that, and none will even in the future,” he said. “If any of us had that actionable intelligence we would all act. We would act separately, we would act in tandem, we would act cooperatively – we would act.”’ — DAWN, June 12, 2008
So, could these self-serving ‘Afghanistan Papers’ have been any more convenient as a casus belli, carrying forth the same core-lies now entering its tenth year? If Wikileaks’ dramatization grabbing all the world’s headlines isn’t an officially sponsored “modified limited hangout” for exactly that purpose of reinforcing the core-lies, then the White House not even bothering to stop the New York Times – whose own motto is ‘All the news that’s fit to print’ – from publishing it, even giving it “all got gold stars” as the Salon put it on July 26, 2010, is downright inexplicable:
“So, uh … why was all of this information classified and top secret? If it’s old news, and it just confirms what “everyone” already knows, what was the rationale for keeping it classified and calling WikiLeaks all sorts of mean names for publishing it?”
What would it matter afterwards, after Iran and Pakistan have been bombed, what were lies and what was truth? Did the bogus mea culpa by the 2005 Presidential Commission on intelligence failure, the Iraq Study Group’s disingenuous conclusion: “We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure,” reverse the decimation of Iraq? Did the New York Times 2008 revelation of Pentagon’s Message Machine after ‘all the barbers in town already knew it’, return back to its silos each and every cruise missile that was dropped upon the innocent civilians of Iraq?
That is the real import of the craftsmanship of the Mighty Wurlitzer! To engineer a fait accompli by manufacturing consent among the gullible masses and dissent among the rabble rousers, leaving future scholars, historians, and the odd malcontent to laudingly study the ashes left behind by “history’s actors”. A diabolical modus operandi of democratic statecraft which the Mighty Wurlitzer’s operators even brazenly brag about:
‘“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”’ (Ron Suskind, New York Times, Oct. 17, 2004)
It is now patently obvious with the Obama Administration officially declaring Osama Bin Laden killed in an American raid on May 1, 2011, why Wikileaks had to “leak” the officialdom’s belief that he was still alive in July 2010! It is all too evident that some mileage is being derived by officially burying that nemesis at sea, a thousand miles from where they proclaim they killed him in an ambush in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Conveniently, it was in Pakistan and not Afghanistan that mankind’s toughest and most resourceful nemesis was found and killed. The color coded threat alerts instantly went up worldwide. Pakistan Navy presumably already suffered a bizarre revenge attack on its naval base in Karachi from Ali Baba’s elusive organization still intact, and now even more formidable than ever before. And its base of operation? Of course Pakistan!
Just as George W. Bush Jr., had intimated was the new Terror Central: “If another September 11 style attack is being planned, it probably is being plotted in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan”!
Was the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush Jr., just inordinately insightful to predict such matters as he was preparing to hand the presidential charge to his successor on the “change” platform? Carefully dissecting the nature of such clairvoyance can perhaps also help the public to become clairvoyant in these often confusing matters on international relations, especially on what’s likely to come as the next global terror threat in the aftermath of Osama Bin Laden. Let’s briefly review how the terrorism of 9/11 was continually foretold by the masters of discourse themselves – for that will surely show how to treat their next bit of fortune telling.
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 الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ۚ Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Maida 5:3)
Indeed. Islam is the name of a religion, “deen” ( الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ).
That is the only, repeat only, context in which the word “Islam” can be legitimately used. It is the only context in which Qur’an has used it, indicating a divine religion to which the Author of the Qur’an itself gave the name “Islam”. The people didn’t chose that name. Whether or not someone believes in Qur’an’s “divinity” is irrelevant to us here; that is what the Book and the Religion upon which Bernard Lewis is proffering his imperial scholarship, itself proclaims.
This is very significant. The word “Islam” is quite distinct from the word used to designate Islam’s followers and the affairs of its followers. That separation of terminology is itself espoused in the Holy Qur’an by virtue of having a separate terminology to refer to the followers. Once again, while this may sound repetitious, but to the Western mind wholly attuned to referring to Christians and Christianity with the same root word devolving from their God named “Christ”, no amount of repetition can ever be sufficient to drive the point home. The Qur’an itself defined a different nomenclature to name its followers; the followers didn’t:
“Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a Muslim nation, bowing to Thy (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites; and turn unto us (in Mercy); for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.” ( Arabic رَبَّنَا وَاجْعَلْنَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ لَكَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِنَا أُمَّةً مُسْلِمَةً لَكَ وَأَرِنَا مَنَاسِكَنَا وَتُبْ عَلَيْنَا ۖ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Baqara 2:128)
This separation of terminology is in fact a singular distinction of Islam in comparison to all the other Abrahamic religions, indeed all major religions of the world including Hinduism, Bhuddism, and Zoroastrianism, which do not feature such a clear separation.
This is why followers of Prophet Muhammad for instance, are not called “Mohammedans”, nor believers of Islam “Islamic”, “Islamist”, etc. except by the prejudicial orientalists.
The word designated in the Holy Qur’an for human beings who are Muslims, regardless of good or bad people, pious or murderers, sinners or saints, is “Muslims”, or to be exact in the transliteration, “Muslimeen” ( مُسْلِمَيْنِ ). The Muslims throughout the world are referred to as “Muslim Umma”, or to be exact in the transliteration, “Ummat-e-Muslima” ( أُمَّةً مُسْلِمَةً ).
All who misuse the Qur’anic terminology, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are either ignorant peoples – and there are always plenty of “learned morons” and parrots in every epoch who are deftly planted on the pulpit – or, the respected apprentices of Machiavelli. In the latter case, they deliberately try to subvert the religion of Islam by associating it with the inglorious deeds and the kingly history of Muslims.
One can immediately see the result of such gratuitous binding. It enables drawing false and specious associations by overloading the semantics in an already well-defined nomenclature.
That is the principal basis for subliminally, as well as cognitively, binding something virtuous (the religion) with something abhorrent (the vile deeds of the peoples, their kings, their cultures, their civilization). Thus, when the word Islam is mentioned, the abhorrent, or whatever is deemed abhorrent by Oriental scholarship, naturally springs to the mind of the seduced.
Based solely on that premeditated collateral damage to language that Samuel Huntington, the late circus clown of empire at Harvard, diabolically made the already quoted statement on “Islam” in his treatise “The Clash of Civilizations”. It is reproduced again because now we dissect it from the language point of view:
“The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the US Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the basic ingredient that fuel conflict between Islam and the West.” (Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996, pg. 217)
Since when did the word “Islam” indicate civilization? A civilization is an aggregate of peoples, harboring one or more cultures, one or more languages, one or more customs, one or more religions. Like the Western civilization which has the nations of German, French, English, American, Russian, etceteras, that many languages, and many religions are practiced in these nations, including atheism, Christianity, and Islam. Whereas Islam is a religion, a “deen”. A religion can be practiced in any civilization, by any peoples, including right here in the USA.
Samuel Huntington’s teacher was evidently Bernard Lewis, as evidenced from their common re-semantification of the word “Islam”. This is how Huntington was able to demonize Islam: “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam,” and “These are the basic ingredient that fuel conflict between Islam and the West.” We have already witnessed the passage above in which Samuel Huntington cited his Princeton University confrere Bernard Lewis as the author of ‘The Roots of Muslim Rage’ and the first authority on the “Clash of Civilizations”. They incestuously reinforce each other rather well, don’t they? Cass Sunstein, the other propagandist Harvard Law professor and President Obama’s information tzar, referred to such incestuous self-reinforcements in his erudite paper on “Conspiracy Theories” in the more refined academic jargon, as “crippled epistemology”.
As we perceptively observe, it is the diabolical misuse of language which first and foremost enables drafting a thesis like “Clash of Civilizations”. (See Prisoners of the Cave Chapter 9 which deconstructs Huntington’s craftsmanship in more depth.) Such theses, made erudite and plausible sounding with the IVY League stamp, are thence crafted into simple propaganda to seed the Mighty Wurlitzer’s many compositions. It is repeated ad nauseum thereafter.
Since Western people’s point of reference is mainly Christianity where the common root word denotes everything, the people “Christians”, the religion “Christianity”, the civilization “Christendom”, even the God “Christ” – in fact everything that Bernard Lewis falsely and maliciously imputed to Islam on page 1 of his propaganda manual “Crisis of Islam” – the same kitchen sink linguistics devilishly attributed to Islam, repeatedly, makes it believable for the un-informed Western public.
Thus, maligning Islam before the un-informed masses becomes a child’s play for the Mighty Wurlitzer. Effective propaganda is always targeted only at the ordinary un-informed peoples, “the crowd of simpletons and the credulous”, as examined in the report Manufacturing Dissent. Its core purpose is to control public behavior by instilling false beliefs.
And we can see its rich harvest not in just the ‘United We Stand’ against “militant Islam” and the unfettered “imperial mobilization” and “shock and “awe”, but in the Qur’an burning, Islam bashing, and other Islamophobic festivities of the ignorant people against Muslims. It is surely not a surprise then, that Islamophobia should have increased steadily in the United States and the West since 9/11. Islamophobia is only the desired and natural effect of the propaganda system of the Mighty Wurlitzer. Like the festering boil on the protesting brides 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.
It is a very slick game all around. The exercise of hegemony always is. And the role of the Mighty Wurlitzer in that game is indispensable.