Islamic Jihad, Cultural Marxism and the West


June 9, 2015 – San Francisco, CA - – While the danger posed by jihadist groups such as ISIS naturally comes to mind when thinking about keeping the American homeland secure, the universe of threats isn't limited to organizations which wage kinetic, irregular warfare against the Western democracies.

Our enemies – both foreign and domestic – are resourceful. Fully realizing that they would be overmatched in a direct, military confrontation with Uncle Sam or for that matter Britain’s John Bull, those who seek to destroy us have adopted a strategy which has, to a greater degree than many realize, already proven successful.

The question being examined here is elemental, just how secure is the entity we call Western Civilization itself?

Understanding the gravity of the issue, our analysis begins with one of the most consequential [though little known] legal cases of this era, the landmark federal terror prosecution, "United States of America v. Holy Land Foundation For Relief And Development, et al," Case No. 3:04-CR-240-G, November 30, 2005. Also see 2004 DOJ announcement Holy Land Foundation Leaders, Accused of Providing Material Support to Hamas Terrorist Organization.

It was a long and complex undertaking, uncovering the funding structure established in the United States which channeled at least $12 million directly to the "Palestinian"1. terrorist group, HAMAS. After being unable to render a verdict in the first trial, a streamlined case was prepared for the second prosecution. The result of which found all of the defendants guilty on a combined total of 108 charges. Of note, one of those convicted was Ghassan Elashi. Elashi had helped found the Texas chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations and was already serving a long prison term, having been convicted in another terror-related case, U.S. v. InfoCom, when the Holy Land decision was handed down.

The sheer volume of evidence submitted by the government at trial was overwhelming to the point of being intimidating, but for terror researchers and national security professionals it was a treasure trove of critical new information. For the first time it became possible to understand the dimensions of a paradigm shifting new player in the game, a process whereby the jihad could be carried on without a shot being fired.

Two exhibits in particular, showed how all-encompassing this strategy is and how many domestic Muslim Brotherhood/HAMAS linked organizations are involved in an effort to subvert the United States.

A. The first of these was a government filing [see, List of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers,] naming dozens of these terror friendly domestic Muslim groups, including the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR], the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA] and the North American Islamic Trust [NAIT, an Islamic waqf] which holds the deed to many radical American mosques.

[Note: both CAIR and ISNA are considered valuable partners by the Obama White House despite their odious connection to the Muslim Brotherhood/HAMAS. Please refer to Steve Emerson and John Rossomando, A Red Carpet for Radicals at the White House, Investigative Project on Terrorism]

In post prosecution actions following the convictions in U.S. v. Holy Land, these organizations were specifically linked - by name - to Hamas by United States District Court [Northern District of Texas] judge Jorge Solis in an opinion which read in part, "The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas," U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis said in the July 1, 2009, ruling." [source, The Investigative Project, Federal Dist. Court filing]

B. The second item to which we refer is a seminal document, seized in a 2004 terror raid in Virginia. It was written in 1987 but not published until sometime during 1991. Until the Holy Land trial, at best only a handful of people were even aware of its existence, it being part of 80 boxes of documents which had largely been unexamined. This manifesto was authored by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Akram. According to Discover the Networks, it was discovered in the home, “of Ismael Elbarasse, a founder of the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia."

The plan outlined a detailed blueprint whereby American culture could be targeted by turning every facet of the modern democratic state against itself. This formed the basis for the Brotherhood’s long-range game plan of subverting the West. [view Government Exhibit GX3-85, The General Strategic Plan for the Group in North America]. For an interesting perspective on this matter please refer to, Janet Levy, Shielding the Enemy, Family Security Matters.

Thus a new term entered the national security vocabulary, “civilization jihad,” a “pre-violent” attack directed at the foundations of the American republic. Quoting from the Muslim Brotherhood's plan:

“The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their own hand…”

We will return to this idea.

Spiritualized Ideologies

Cultures are dynamic structures. At one level they’re comprised of individuals, the majority of whom share the same beliefs, customs, language, traditions, legal sensibilities and ethical standards etc. In a more all-encompassing sense civilizations are often an amalgam of cultures which likewise have similar attributes. For example though the French have a culture distinct from that of Britain or of the United States, there is such commonality as to basic purpose and historical experience that they are conjoined, unitized as it were as members of Western Civilization.

As these attributes change over time, so does the culture. Left to develop on their own, cultures and hence civilizations evolve in a process which is largely organic, i.e., change is [often unconsciously] weighed against tradition, which has already been proven successful. It’s the antithesis of the utopian model which creates philosophical blueprints designed to produce the "perfect society" and then seeks to impose them on the status quo, regardless of merit or practicality.

"One of the dominant ideas which has governed thinking since the 18th century is the idea that we can make everything to our pleasure. That we can design social institutions in their working is basically mistaken. Social institutions have never been designed...They have grown up by a process of selection of the successful without frequently knowing why it was successful. The market is an instrument which enables us to utilize knowledge which is distributed among hundreds of thousands of people. It's an adaptation to thousands of circumstances which nobody can ever know as a whole, where the prices formed on the market tell the individual what to do and what not to do in the social interest..." [source, FA Hayek on Social Justice, Firing Line]

One is reminded here of the aphorism that a camel is a horse designed by committee.

Edmund Burke [1729-1797], acknowledged by many as the father of modern conservatism, was an Irish born political philosopher and long time Member of the House of Commons. While strongly supportive of the American cause, he was above all, a thoughtful man and searched for a means to reconcile the great differences between Britain and the Colonies short of war. He approached the matter practically, suggesting concessions to allow the Colonists to enjoy their freedom without breaking from the orbit of Mother England. But with tensions on both sides of the Atlantic mounting he came to realize that such measures were probably already too late given the advanced state of decay in affairs. Though it obviously pained him see where events were leading, that didn't stop Burke from declaring that the colonists had the right, as Englishmen, to determine their own future:

"For, in order to prove that the Americans have no right to their liberties, we are every day endeavouring to subvert the maxims which preserve the whole spirit of our own. To prove that the Americans ought not to be free, we are obliged to depreciate the value of freedom itself; and we never seem to gain a paltry advantage over them in debate, without attacking some of those principles, or deriding some of those feelings, for which our ancestors have shed their blood.  [source, Edmund Burke, Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies, March 22, 1775]

Burke however made no effort to hide his loathing of the French Revolution, the violence which defined it and the Jacobins, the revolution's Waffen SS [Schutzstaffel] which oversaw and enforced its reign of terror. The British legislator - a particularly gifted orator - railed against the radical ideologies of his day, believing instead that slow, thoughtful, evolutionary change built upon tradition was preferable. He championed caution of action based upon a respect for tradition because it relied on ideas and methods which had survived the test of time. Hence his use of the terms “prejudice,” by which he meant consciously making choices based upon prior experience, and “prescription,” the application of this sometimes ancient wisdom as an ameliorating force in dealing with societal problems.

There was another reason - implicit - in Burke's defense of tradition. It serves to foster long term social stability, knitting the generations together by passing shared historical experience and custom from the older to the younger. As we will see later, failure to attend to this process can lead to unsustainable, discontinuous societies where the young have so little in common that they might as well inhabit different planets.

“Edmund Burke's political theory was engendered in the context of the unfolding drama of modernity. In particular, his political ideas were a response to the rise of radical ideologies like Jacobinism. But the circumstances of the eighteenth century may have been worse than Burke surmised…” [source, Michael P. Federici, The Politics of Prescription: Kirk's Fifth Canon of Conservative Thought , First Principles] 

This reference was a caveat which Burke, understandably, hadn’t considered.

What if a political ideology was held with a religious like conviction? What if, as it was with too many in the intellectual class, the religious concept of "truth" no longer had meaning, creating a vacuum ready-made to be filled by a secular, alternative religious-like ideology?

“…Irving Babbitt recognized by the early twentieth century that Burke had underestimated the spiritual strength of radical ideologies bent on uprooting traditional ideas and the prescriptive institutions of Western Civilization. Burke dismissed the radicals of the eighteenth century as "half a dozen grasshoppers…with their importunate chink." The men of tradition he compared to "thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak." Although they are silent, they outnumber and outweigh in character the "little, shriveled, meager, hopping, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour." Babbitt, however, replies that "the little, meager, hopping insects of the hour were representatives of an international movement of a vast scope, a movement destined finally to prevail over the prejudice and prescription that Burke was defending.” [source, ibid]

“Spiritual” strength” in this sense means accepting a set of principles to a very large degree based on faith or belief [unwaveringly persuaded] alone. This level of devotion is equivalent to the theological rigor maintained by practicing members of "organized" religions and is, in the non-pejorative sense, just as impervious to argumentation.

The philosopher Nietzsche [1844-1900] was also observant of his own rapidly changing world which was heavily influenced by a generalized loss of faith:

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves? That which was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives - who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games will we need to invent? Isn't the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it?" [Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, The Madman]

He reasoned that this state of affairs left a spiritual void so vast that individuals were cast adrift as it were, freed from the "bondage" of that which is certifiable. He saw in this the possibility of a nihilism constrained only loosely by the expansive concept of moral/ethical relativism.

This leaves us with two temporally sacralized ideologies [please see addendum to end notes] the goal of each being the “fundamental transformation” of society [a favorite elocution of Mr. Obama's], albeit for different but somewhat interrelated purposes. As used here the agents of transformation are belief structures directed towards the eventual eradication of Western Civilization. This can be a full frontal assault, as was the case in the French Revolution, or a less direct but possibly more dangerous method of stealthily toppling the foundational elements of democratic, free-market republicanism: liberty [as in individual as opposed to group rights], private property, capitalism and of course the moral imperative which drives the process, the post-Reformational Judeo Christian ethic. So vital is the concept of a revealed or generally accepted moral philosophy affirming truth, that even one of a "deviational" nature, which might be seen more broadly, but still reverentially as a creation myth, will suffice because it would nonetheless serve as an ethical guidepost originating from a loftier authority than that of man.

The Unholy Alliance

One of these ideologies is that of the progressive/neo-Marxists. We define the term broadly, so as to include non-classical liberalism and so-called “moderate” leftism because over time, they're functionally identical. Note the morphing of Democrat party over the last century from the conservative, classical liberalism of president Grover Cleveland [1837-1908] to the Marxism of Barack Hussein Obama.

To those who might object, claiming it's an unjustifiably expansive definition, let us offer an analogy. Consider two co-workers at XYZ Inc., going through the daily grind of driving to work. Though one of these people might build dragsters on the weekends thus minutely understanding the intricacies which make up automobile performance, his counterpart might be challenged to properly inflate the tires. Yet despite these vast differences, both use the same tool, in an identical manner to arrive at the same place.

Scratch a liberal and, eventually, collectivist blood will flow, this is manifestly not Jack Kennedy's party.

The second is a unique entity, a politically driven quasi-religion, Islam, which is defiantly revolutionary. Grounded upon the Shari’a [Islamic religious law] outside of ritual, it’s very much about political power, conquest and consequently, dominion. This has been the case with Islam as it has been normatively practiced since its inception in the seventh century, with only brief periods of quiescence. The Qur'an - understood to be the very word of Allah - was "revealed" to Mohammed, carried by the angel Gabriel. This extraordinary experience took place when Islam's prophet was about 40 years of age, approximately the year 610 AD.

Both of these ideologies must be viewed as enemy threat doctrines.

As the once mighty Ottoman Empire was crumbling at the end of World War I, the philosophy of Islamic global jihad was already being exhumed and readied for battle in the new age. It was heavily influenced in the 20th century by the work of an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood theoretician, Seyyid Qutb and that of the Indo-Pakistani writer Abul A'la Mawdudi [Maududi] who quite forthrightly proclaimed Islam to be a revolutionary ideology.

“In 1926, in a work that anticipates most of the ideological developments of the past two decades, the youthful Mawdudi had declared: “Islam is a revolutionary ideology and a revolutionary practice, which aims at destroying the social order of the world totally and rebuilding it from scratch…and jihad [holy war] denotes the revolutionary struggle.” Mawdudi conceived the modern world as the arena of the “conflict between Islam and un-Islam,” the later being equated with pre-Islamic ignorance [jahiliyya] and polytheism. Modern creeds and political philosophies were equated with polytheism and ignorance. Their predominance necessitated the revival of Islam…” [source, Said Amir Arjomand, Revolution, Critical Concepts in Political Science , Rosemary H. T. O’Kane, Ed, p. 296]

Mawdudi considered Islam to be a duality, a mixture of both religion and political ideology:

“Islam is a revolutionary doctrine and system that overturns governments. It seeks to overturn the whole universal social order...and establish its structure anew...Islam seeks the world. It is not satisfied by a piece of land but demands the whole universe...Islamic Jihad is at the same time offensive and defensive...The Islamic party does not hesitate to utilize the means of war to implement its goal.” [source, Yvonne Haddad, "Islamists and the Challenge of Pluralism," Washington, D.C.: Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, 1995, p. 10]

He saw a certain degree of similarity between elements of Marxism [for example the idea of a political “vanguard,” i.e., the standard bearers who were expected to advance the movement] and his developing ideas as he worked towards a reformational Islam. These were incorporated into a new fundamentalism, given form in Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Islami, which he created. His impact on the development of the pan-Islamic movement, or Islamism has been great and is often overlooked

As evidence of this influence, it was Mawdudi who authored the chapter on “jihad” in a primer on the Muslim religion – Towards Understanding Islam – which is widely distributed at the conferences/conventions of Muslim Brotherhood front groups. In it he says:

"Jihad is a part of this overall defense of the language of the Divine Law, this word is used specifically for the war that is waged solely in the name of God against those who perpetrate oppression as enemies of Islam. This supreme sacrifice is the responsibility of all Muslims...jihad is as much a primary duty as are daily prayers or fasting. One who avoids it is a sinner. His every claim to being a Muslim is doubtful. He is plainly a hypocrite who fails in the tests of sincerity and his acts of worship are a sham, a worthless hollow show of devotion..." [source, Abul A'la Mawdudi, "Towards Understanding Islam," pg. 124-125]

Qutb, whose most influential contributions towards a reconfigured Islam occurred post World War II, also closely identified with the concept of political "vanguardism"  - a central core leadership of believers who must separate themselves from 'jahili' society [that of the unbelievers and the "ignorant," which could include Muslims who fell outside his vision of an incendiary movement] to lead humanity toward the "true or purified Islam."

"It is therefore necessary that Islam's theoretical foundation - belief - materialize in the form of an organized and active group from the very beginning. It is necessary that this group separate itself from the jahili society...the center of this new group should be new leadership...which first came in the person of the Prophet: [Milestones, p. 47]

This quiet intellectual was a keen observer. The central point of his scathing indictment of the West was as valid then as it is today. Our civilization has been brought to its knees, no longer able to "present healthy values for the guidance of mankind." The irony that one of jihadism's most influential architects could so eloquently identify the disease which today plagues us is hard to overlook.

“Mankind today is on the brink of a precipice, not because of the danger of complete annihilation which is hanging over its head - this being just a symptom and not the real disease - but because humanity is devoid of those vital values which are necessary not only for its healthy development but also for its real progress. Even the Western world realizes that Western civilization is unable to present any healthy values for the guidance of mankind...It is essential for mankind to have a new leadership...Islam is the only system which possesses these values and this way of life. [Milestones, p. 7]

In analyzing the nexus between these two threatening ideologies, the levels of affinity between Marxism and Islamism can be seen as a carapace of shared macro-values and goals: Both are internationalist in the sense of seeing beyond borders, they seek the overthrow of the existing order, believe in perpetual struggle - note the symmetry between Marxist "wars of national liberation" and jihad, seek the imposition, by force if necessary, of utopian political/economic systems rooted in control, consider appeasement to be provocative, share an unshakeable sense of intellectual superiority/triumphalism, the belief that theirs is the inevitable pathway to the end of history, a concept which relies on the historicism of Hegel, which heavily influenced the young Marx and finally, both systems are advocates for the redistribution of wealth, taking from the "rich nobles" and giving it to the poor.

"At the time of the Prophet's call to Messengership, Arab society was devoid of proper distribution of wealth and devoid of justice. A small group monopolized all wealth and commerce, which increased through usury. The great majority of the people were poor and hungry. The wealthy were also regarded as noble and distinguished, and the common people were not only deprived of wealth but also of dignity and honor. It can be said that Muhammad - peace be upon him - was capable of starting a social movement, declaring war against the class of nobles and the wealthy, taking away their wealth and distributing it to the poor." [source, Seyyid Qutb, Milestones, p. 26-27].

Additionally, anti-Semitism/Jew hatred is a strong current in both of these ideologies. We feel no need to demonstrate this aspect of Islamism since it’s on constant display, but with regard to Marxism a few examples should suffice because to Marx, the Jew was a "problem." He lives an insular life and refuses to recognize the authority of the state which in Hegelian analysis represents the fullest expression of man, of the "right" to use his term

In the various writings of Marx, which dealt with what he called the “Jewish Problem,” the author’s vicious anti-Semitism is obvious:

"Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man’s work and man’s existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it...the god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange...The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination...What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money...Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time." [please refer to Pierre Birnbaum, The Geography of Hope, Exile, the Enlightenment, Disassimilation, Stanford University Press, 2008, pp 58-63]

Progressive leftism/Marxism and Islamism are the chief ideologies which seek our destruction. They are the protagonists which drive transformational politics of the type we are now witness to in Washington and in most of the Muslim world. They operate in tandem fashion, allying where politically advantageous upon the belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

In the shadow war to overturn the culture, language is an essential component so naturally it becomes a target. Understandably then, conflict over the lexicon is being waged at the highest levels of the national security apparatus, throughout government as a whole and in a much more general and all encompassing sense, throughout the culture. The non-governmental institutions which have been targeted in this clandestine influence operation are those which define and create our way of life, culture and ultimately, our civilization.

Realizing that these represent the soft underbelly of a republican democracy they are under furious assault by the neo-Marxist left and their unholy revolutionary allies, the jihadists.

The concept is not a new one, control the language, circumscribe the parameters within which dialogue is permissible...dominate the narrative, and therefore define the culture. This technique has bled into academe, where it has found great acceptance.

More precisely, the term “narrative” shouldn't be seen as single entity. Broadly speaking there are two forms, the first might be referred to as the meta-narrative, the grand characterization of whatever is being asserted. The meta-narrative concerns itself with elemental/global matters, those which define the basic nature of a particular culture. This larger idea contains numerous individual mythologies [sub-component, micro-narratives] which together form the larger whole. As an analogy think of the component narrative as being the particular, which in concert with others of the same nature, create the general. In a real world example [Ferguson, Missouri] the fraudulent local narrative characterized by the slogan "hands up, don't shoot" is employed to make the larger over-arching cultural indictment that white law enforcement is engaged in a willful and systematic campaign of "hunting" young black men. We will leave it to the good judgment of the reader to discern the foundational from the particular, keeping in mind that generally “fundamental transformation” really means changing the metanarrative by manipulating its components. The intellectual development of this process is further described below.

Antonio Gramsci [a 1930s era Italian Communist theoretician] was instrumental in solidifying these ideas. His writings reveal extraordinary perceptual insight into how customs, language, religion/belief structures etc., might be forcibly changed, pushed as it were, in a direction that the culture would not normally have taken under its own inertia. It was Gramsci who in the early part of the 20th century, identified and explored the process of cultural transformation. He proposed "marching through the institutions," slowly taking over the mechanisms whereby culture is created and molded - the print and electronic news media, the arts, the law, the universities, government, organized religion...nothing that contributes to the nature of a society is left untouched. He reasoned that this would result in those engaging in the transformation establishing a new cultural "hegemony," to replace that of the capitalists.

Gramsci's theories became the cornerstone of economic Marxism's ugly twin, cultural Marxism.

Successfully employed, the process cuts society from its moorings, binding citizens in Dostoevsky's contention, that if some ultimately authoritative source of truth doesn't exist, then everything is permitted, thus clearing the playing field for the social engineers and mischief makers.

"… It's God that's worrying me. That's the only thing that's worrying me. What if He doesn't exist? What if Rakitin's right -- that it's an idea made up by men? Then if He doesn't exist, man is the chief of the earth, of the universe. Magnificent! Only how is he going to be good without God? That's the question. I always come back to that. For whom is man going to love then? To whom will he be thankful? To whom will he sing the hymn? [source, Part IV. Book XI: Ivan, Chapter 4: A Hymn and a Secret, The Brothers Karamazov, p. 1243]

In the case of Islam, adherents are very tightly regulated and severely punished for transgressions against the faith, but non-believers are essentially meat to be fed into the grinder. ISIS, Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab’s “atrocities” are not anomalous, they are justified within the Qur’an and are therefore permitted. The level brutality with which these groups operate is incomprehensible to most Western minds. We have been covering these matters for so long now that a certain amount of desensitization has necessarily taken place. As do all people working in this field, there are things of this nature that we simply won't publish because they are so unspeakably evil. Be advised however that those who are maximally committed to these ideologies will stop at absolutely nothing to bring their vision about and that unless one is very well-versed in these matters, it's impossible to imagine the level of depravity which these fanatics can summon to impose their will.

Both Marxism and Islamism reject the Western concept of revealed truth [in the Jeffersonian sense of wisdom bestowed by interacting with "nature's God"], of immutable moral precepts which originate at a level above man's existence, can be discovered through studied reason and imbue him with unalienable natural rights, including the freedom to choose one’s religion, or reject it out of hand.

In the rarefied environment of a situational/cultural relativity, both Judaism and Christianity entirely lose their moral authority, the ability to provide guidance in human affairs. Why not then kill, or covet your neighbor's wife or goods? Why set aside a time of contemplation of things larger than yourself?

Under Gramsci’s analysis, if the culture wasn't "Marxist friendly," the solution was to engage in an engineering project [invoking the idea of the long or hundred year war] pushing the culture towards one which was less resistant to change. In Gramsci's way of looking at the mater one might begin with awakening the proletariat so that it would first, come to recognize its existence as an identifiable and oppressed class and then to create an awareness of its supposed role in society, the miserable plight of its status in life and to blame that state of affairs on capitalism It was thought that the "workers," so indoctrinated would welcome the possibility of empowerment and become foot soldiers in the revolution. The institutions chosen for radical transformation include the aforementioned institutions, especially those at the top of the food chain which have a certain natural command authority - political figures, the educrats and religious organizations among them.

The theory of multiculturalism and diversity [cultural Marxism] and its practice, arguably are the most powerful drivers of transformational politics because they blunt the effectiveness of the process whereby a society can maintain its unique nature. It's a roadblock designed to thwart assimilation, acculturation and integration, the schemata which has created the essence of what it means to be a [non-hyphenated] American.

Within the Gramscian dialectic, multiculturalism, diversity and “cultural pluralism” become spiritualized stratagems of class [and its sub-genres, gender, ethnic, sexual identification, etc.] warfare. Imagine the many layers of an onion, interspersed with shards of glass, each working against the other to reduce the object into a formless mass. They inevitably [and are designed to] lead to Balkanized cultures. This battle has largely been uncontested over the last 100 years, the primary reason for its strong presence in academia since at least the late 1960s. [please refer to,]

None of this has a positive impact on the security of the nation.

Perverse Multiculturalism

Over the years this class/ethnic consciousness has been forced into the primary and secondary schools as well as worming its way into other secular and even religious institutions. Multiculturalists rejoice in the cultivation of an atomized polity, a melting pot in reverse. That realization is significant, since it identifies multiculturalism as part of a larger political movement which is internationalist in nature and revolutionary in scope because it can be used to simultaneously attack all of Western Civilization.

The multi-cultists aren’t shy about stating their ambitious radical goal of wholesale change. We quote at length from the National Association of Multicultural Education.

Yes there is indeed such a body:

“Multicultural education is a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, equity, and human dignity as acknowledged in various documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, constitutions of South Africa…it affirms our need to prepare students for their responsibilities in an interdependent world. It recognizes the role schools can play in developing the attitudes and values necessary for a democratic society. It values cultural differences and affirms the pluralism that students, their communities, and teachers reflect. It challenges all forms of discrimination in schools and society through the promotion of democratic principles of social justice…it prepares all students to work actively toward structural equality in organizations and institutions by providing the knowledge, dispositions, and skills for the redistribution of power and income among diverse groups. Thus, school curriculum must directly address issues of racism, sexism, classism, linguicism, ablism, ageism, heterosexism, religious intolerance, and xenophobia…teachers and students must critically analyze oppression and power relations in their communities, society and the world…Multicultural education requires comprehensive school reform as multicultural education must pervade all aspects of the school community and organization. Recognizing that equality and equity are not the same thing, multicultural education attempts to offer all students an equitable educational opportunity, while at the same time, encouraging students to critique society in the interest of social justice.” [source, NAME]

This is the core of multicultural thinking - a code-word laden defense of an intentionally divisive identity politics. It being inspired, by of all things, the South African Constitution and similar UN declarations and charters adds further focus to its nature. It's a philosophy which is totally at odds with the shared beliefs, traditions and body of laws which have guided America since its founding.

A few selected passages from the South African, post Apartheid, constitution:

It writes inequality and unequal treatment into the law – To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken."

The document disregards freedom of expression - [it] does not extend to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion."

It doesn’t recognize private property – Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application [it may be expropriated]for a public purpose or in the public interest the public interest includes the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources; and property is not limited to land The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis."

This is a legal corpus which absolutely guarantees societal bloodletting. It’s the charter of a police state, which is evident upon a brief review of how the South African government behaves on a daily basis.

The tenets of multiculturalism are really stalking horses, masquerading as the agents of "social," "political," "economic," and "educational" justice, all of which operate in a manner opposite to the lofty imagery they seek to connote.

Equity in the above sense [equality of outcome, or shared misery] is really the process the Founders excoriated as "leveling," it bluntly empowers Leviathan government. Given enough time and resources  this megalith becomes impossibly strong - impregnable - leaving only two options: violence or subjugation.

Subjugation is clearly unacceptable but violence is only slightly less so.

If as a “Yankee” you have ever spent much time with the “Rebs” in the Heart of Dixie it’s impossible not to see how the scars from the Civil War [the “War of Northern Aggression"] - despite the passage of 150 years - still haven't fully healed. The societal dislocation which would result from an all encompassing revolt are unimaginable and completely uncontrollable. Once the shooting starts things will never, ever be the same. If we were somehow to survive such a cataclysm, 500 years from now it would remain as the most significant event in American history.

The left, supremacist pseudo-religions, the educational gulag [from which this theory has spread like a plague] and racial separatists who hasten its acceptance – have found safe harbor within the Democrat Party. As we are currently witnessing, these people are willing to break a few eggs in order to sustain the “perpetual revolution,” a concept championed by Leon Trotsky, a prominent communist intellectual.

Perhaps the members of the Students for a Democratic Society [a Marxist assemblage of hippie era spoiled college misfits] encapsulated the process most concisely, “the issue is NEVER the issue, the issue is ALWAYS the revolution." For readers so inclined we refer you to the SDS’ Port Huron Manifesto, issued in 1962 and written by Tom Hayden, who probably needs no introduction.

Let us consider a case study which we hope will tie some of these possibly disparate sounding ideas together - we submit the tale of Rigoberta Menchu:

Over the last 30 plus years the story of this Guatemalan Indian native woman has been a cause célèbre among the multiculturalists and intellectual class.

Menchu offered a fable - a sweeping morality play - in which a poor but brave native Latin American voice bore witness to the damaging nature of American imperialism in her country. In recognition of her story, she was awarded the Pulitzer Peace Prize in 1992. She was feted and lionized as a culture warrior for striking a blow against Uncle Sam’s supposed predation on Guatemala’s indigenous people.

Unfortunately for Menchu and her supporters, I Rigoberta Menchu, An Indian Woman In Guatemala [1983], has been conclusively proven to be a collection of untruths.

Her fabrications were demonstrated by anthropologist David Stoll - among others - who spent a great deal of time in the exact locations and villages that Menchu referred to and could find little if any corroboration between her statements and reality. Dr. Stoll’s research was reinforced by a similar study done by the New York Times - seldom thought of as an agent of the vast right wing conspiracy - which came to the same conclusion.

“Says Stoll, "We have an unfortunate tendency to idolize native voices that serve our own political and moral needs, as opposed to others that do not." By constructing what Stoll calls "mythologies of purity," academics were able to isolate themselves from the reality of a situation often at the expense of the people they were mythologizing. And this is exactly what he thought was happening in Guatemala and why, despite the risks, Stoll felt the moral imperative to "deconstruct" Rigoberta's story. It was not all that hard to do. Other than her age, twenty-three at the time of the narrative, just about every other contention in the book is conspicuously false.” [source, Jack Cashil, Rigoberta Menchu Won The Nobel Too, American Thinker]

What was Menchu’s motive?

She concocted the story to foster support for the Communist insurrection in Guatemala, and her subsequent tours of Europe in support of revolutionary politics testified to her purpose.

The Educrats Are Coming

Mere fraud, however, wasn’t enough to dissuade the PBS program "Point of View" from preparing multicultural lesson plans prominently featuring Ms. Menchu’s forged reality, and to this day her book remains an icon of the left. This is typical of media attitudes supporting "the movement" at all costs and especially, its version of patron saints.

“[Multicultural education] fosters an animus against what are perceived as Western values, particularly the value placed on acquiring knowledge, on analytical thinking, and on academic achievement itself." - Losing Our Language How Multicultural Classroom Instruction Is Undermining Our Children's Ability to Read, Write, and Reason - Sandra Stotsky, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Also please refer to, Anne C. Westwater, William J. Bennetta , Review of “Losing Our Language”, The Textbook League]

Mandatory Western civilization courses in higher education have in large part been strangled out of existence by practitioners of transformational politics, because they assert the ancient wisdom associated with brilliant - but deceased - white patriarchs; males who can no longer defend themselves. Towards that end, Menchu’s concocted anti-American paean against capitalism became such a force that it quickly started supplanting the long established model of a traditional education, steeped in imparting a body of common knowledge including the classical works of antiquity to produce a well-rounded citizen with an understanding and appreciation for the culture.

As such it's a pivotal work.

That, I Rigoberta Menchu, is based on intentional misrepresentation, and that its purveyors are aware of that fact, remarkably, does nothing to reduce its value as a leftist totem.

"I think Rigoberta Menchu has been used by the right to negate the very important space that multiculturalism is providing in academia," says Marjorie Agosin, head of the Spanish department at Wellesley College. "Whether her book is true or not, I don't care. We should teach our students about the brutality of the Guatemalan military and the U.S. financing of it." [source, Wilson, Robin. "A Challenge to The Veracity of a Multicultural Icon," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 January 1999, pp. A14-A16]. We note with great emphasis the use of the term "icon" which attests to the secular religiosity with which the cultural transformers hold this doctrine.

This mindset is eerily reminiscent of ex-CBS star reporter Dan Rather as he continued to insist that his forged document story on George Bush’s National Guard duty remained relevant despite the fact that it was entirely made-up. The "Rather Standard" being: demonstrably fraudulent but nonetheless true.

Encapsulated, Rigoberta Menchu's fable is a blood libel against Western democracies. Her assertions were created out of whole cloth, a conclusion arrived at through painstaking anthropological research. Even significant elements in the leftist media trashed her thesis. Her brother wasn't burned alive by the Guatemalan army and none of the pivotal events she relates happened. The truth is that Menchu is simply another in a long line of Marxist propagandists intent upon advancing a twisted political cause. Not only are most of the book's events made up, the story itself is poorly told and less than expertly edited. It gains whatever power it has because its gullible, self-hating largely Caucasian audience is so foolish to simply accept, as a matter of faith, the ridiculous assertion that "native voices" have special access to wisdom.

Multicultural education is learning devoid of worth; supposed uniqueness elevated over value. It goes far beyond the simple admonition to be respectful of those who come from differing cultures and ends up as a political tactic calculated to set groups at each other’s throats, all to gain political advantage.

Actually it's an exceedingly clever tactic, similar in manner to the way in which diminutive hyenas successfully pursue large African plains game. Individually, such relatively small creatures are powerless to bring down massive, tough and swift animals on their own, but assaults in packs - the animal kingdom’s equivalent of gang warfare – as mirrored by the left’s own rainbow coalition hunting parties - multiplies the effect of individual ferocity into a lethal weapon capable of bringing down far bigger game.

Multiculturalism should be understood as nothing less than a search and destroy mission directed against the majority culture all the while disguised to appeal to the basic fairness and tolerance which resides in the American spirit.

Where is the evidence that a strong multicultural education is superior? Everywhere it has been tried it has only succeeded in less knowledgeable students and a lowering of academic achievement. Are there examples of nations based upon disunity, unclear purpose and Tower of Babel confusion having been successful?

The lessons of history preach distinctly the opposite.

Further complicating the picture, the educative process whereby multicultural diversity is imposed on impressionable young minds has become big business, the foundations, educational pressure groups, college departments and media busy bodies that support it are bathed in the mother’s milk of activism, money, much of it flowing from an ever expanding centralized government.

Nearly every school district in the United States has a determined, well financed group of Zulu shock troops pushing this failed, inherently bigoted theory.

The role which educators have played in waging the culture war has been purposeful. For example, Johns Hopkins University [Baltimore, Maryland] was founded in 1876 with the explicit mission of bringing "European style" education and its principles to the U.S. American educators scoured Europe for leftist educators - especially those influenced by the German philosophers - to be used as seed material to transform American higher education.

The rapidity with which this spirit became ingrained into the professoriate is remarkable. Johns Hopkins became a kind of breeding ground for "progressivism" which argued, much like their siblings do today, that America's foundational structure and intellectual heritage had become outdated. The rationale for moving past the political thinking of the founding was that new historical conditions required new "instruments," meaning a larger and more invasive federal government with which to deal with these perceived needs.

The new university quickly produced two important progressive thinkers, John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson
As noted within Political Science coursework offered by Hillsdale College dealing specifically with the American Progressive Movement:

“As a leading Progressive scholar from the 1880s onward, Dewey, who taught mainly at Columbia University, devoted much of his life to redefining the idea of education. His thought was influenced by German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, and central to it was a denial of objective truth and an embrace of historicism and moral relativism. As such he was critical of the American founding.”

To Woodrow Wilson, the founding principles of America were an impediment to his expansive agenda so he reinterpreted them to allow the type of social tinkering he had in mind. He argued that the road map proviced by the founders was so flexible that it not only permitted, but required constant reconsideration as to what type of government would best address the problems of any particular historical period. Consistent with his belief that truth was relative, Wilson quipped, “if you want to understand the real Declaration do not repeat the preface.”

In an essay written in 1907, and widely delivered as a speech in public forums, he more fully developed this thesis:

“We are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence. We are as free as they were to make and unmake governments. We are not here to worship men or document. Neither are we here to indulge in a mere rhetorical and uncritical eulogy. Every Fourth of July should be a time for examining our standards, our purposes, for determining afresh what principles what forms of power we think most likely to affect our safety and happiness that and that alone is the obligation the Declaration lays upon us ”

The future president felt this way because he knew that Madison, Jefferson and others who created America's core foundation were mindful of the excesses inherent in large bureaucratic governments and specifically designed a system which internally checked itself to prevent the passions of the masses from becoming transformed into majoritarian rule. Hence the power of government had to be carefully circumscribed, which of course would thwart his plans.

The fact is, this process is no secret to our most mortal enemies, those engaged in spreading jihadist Islam by the force of terror, so they have taken a page from the progressive left and adopted civilization jihad, creating myths [Islamophobia for example] to both influence language and to tow the culture in a direction of their choosing. The accusation of being an Islamophobe still carries an extraordinary impact with many individuals despite voluminous evidence produced by the DOJ which disproves the contention that it even exists.

We have been writing about this phenomena for many years, please refer to, [CAIR Continues Big Lie Regarding "Hate Crimes" Committed Against Muslims: FBI Stats Prove That Widespread American Islamophobia Is Nonexistent ,, October 12, 2010]

As alluded to previously, central to the process of manipulating culture is the power of the fallacious narrative, which is the Marxist deconstructive tool of first resort. As such, it’s a curious thing; think of it as a parable which suggests or is presented to “prove” one or more contentions which are inimical to Western principle and indeed have no basis in fact. More technically this happens through a reductive process which rips to pieces that which is being analyzed. This is done because it destroys the bonds and linkages which knit a world view together. The end process results in non-reality becoming indistinguishable from that which is real because all the road signs have been stolen.

That the contention is demonstrably false doesn’t detract from its power to influence since it recapitulates Goebbels’ use of the “big lie” to sway the great unwashed. On an elemental level it's the illogic of reasoning general points from an example of one, of for that matter sometimes nothing at all. Despite the fact that the charges are so broad and unsupported by anything approaching statistical validity, they are offered as working theories. As the philosopher Karl Popper argued, a theory which can't be proven false is unscientific and thus has little merit, it's at best an opinion. Cultural narratives fall into this class of reasoning. Regardless of how many examples suggest that the assumption is wrong, it continues to maintain its intellectual vigor among the transformationalists. It's assumed true upon the shaky foundation of simply having been asserted, true because it's true. At its core the process itself is as unreasonable as expecting that a man can be reconstructed from his cremated remains. Certainly the ashes represent in some sense his essence, but analyzing them will never lead to any real understanding of the being which no longer exists.

A recent example of this taken from the combative world of presidential politics occurred during the 2012 presidential election. Mitt Romney, the GOP candidate, a genuinely nice, ethical and deeply religious man, had made a small fortune on Wall Street as a “turnaround” expert. His group [Bain Capital] would identify companies which were failing but seemed to have potential, then purchase and reorganize them hoping to make a profit.

An inauthentic thesis was developed, one designed to play into the pre-existing and popularly held contempt for the wealthy, especially those who make a living in the financial services industry - you know - those who “didn’t really work” or “produce anything of value,” having no grime under their manicured fingernails. The characterization associated with the “Robber Barons” [actually a brilliant creation of New York political cartoonist Thomas Nast in the mid 19th century] was that they were almost invariably white, male, money grubbing heartless bastards who turned orphans and widows out on the street just to make a buck, or sometimes just for the sport of it.

Notwithstanding that the portrait was cartoonish, millions accepted it, a priori. An advertising campaign was constructed around the prejudice where a central casting “factory worker” in one of companies which Mitt’s corporation held, made the outrageous claim that the candidate had killed his wife, denying her medical coverage [which she had obtained through her husband who had allegedly been fired] thus allowing cancer to overwhelm her. The entire presentation was a lie, one which even news organizations as terminally dense as CNN had already debunked. Nonetheless, it served to personalize and justify the big picture that Romney was so ruthless and greedy that the mere killing of a woman wouldn’t deter him from working his evil magic.

That the ads played into the hysteria associated with the Marxist Occupy Wall Street movement [see our coverage, William Mayer, Occupy Oakland October 19, 2011, Taste The Madness] as well as the controversy surrounding ObamaCare only served to make it more timely and effective.

In another illustration, we previously referred to the nonexistent presence of Islamophobia in America. Irrespective of the fact that it's a false allegation, it remains on the lips of Islamists such as Ibrahim [formerly, Douglas, a convert to Islam] Hooper, National Spokesman for the HAMAS linked organization CAIR. So powerful are such well-told and endlessly propagated fabrications that it has resulted in the Dept. of Defense purging supposedly “Islamophobic” instructors and related educational material from its anti-terrorism course work. This undoubtedly has major negative implications for a society under attack by disciples of Allah, who are, if one reads the legacy media, now the victims of a hopelessly bigoted nation.

The number of similar examples in which this technique has been employed is nearly endless:

The mindless procedures developed by the TSA post 911, which make no effort to even rough sort those who most likely don’t pose a threat from those who fit the behavioral pattern [portrait] of a terrorist, the model the Israeli’s have successfully been using for many years. Uninfluenced by the dementia of multiculturalism, the Israeli pre-flight screening process includes vehicle searches, surveillance cameras placed everywhere, interviews with prospective passengers the length of which is determined by how they respond as well as making religion a consideration. This is not blind profiling, its taking every aspect of an individual into account in order to make a judgment based upon decades of experience.

Al Sharpton and the Tawana Brawley non-incident.

President Obama’s reprehensible jury tampering in the Trayvon Martin case and subsequent furthering of a false narrative even after the jury had found the killing justifiable, “You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.” [source, WH website, President’s comments re Trayvon Martin]

The “rape friendly” University of Virginia campus, which we now know was untrue, to the degree that the comic book periodical Rolling Stone was forced to retract the story, as it prepares to deal with the ensuing litigation to be brought by those directly affected by magazine’s inexcusable libelous actions.

The fallacious allegations in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Perverse “diversity” training programs in the military , largely at the behest of President Obama. These programs have been accompanied by a reckless purging of a whole generation of flag officers whom the CIC has judged to be irreconcilable opponents of his manipulation…think, Hitler’s purging of the SS, the “Night of the Long Knives” [mid-summer 1934] which helped him solidify power

But as one will note within the president’s Martin statement, the facts are irrelevant if they serve a larger purpose.

Regarding the defamation of UVA, the left won't let go of the broader purpose lurking behind it. The power of an admittedly false narrative remains because…"well it happens all over, just trust us on this, the capitalist, Islamophobic, homophobic, white privilege, right wing etc., culture is rotten to the core and must be brought down."

If you have any doubts, peruse Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig’s psychotic analysis in the New Republic, Rolling Stone's Rape Article Failed Because It Used Rightwing Tactics to Make a Leftist Point.

“…Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the investigative journalist and true-crime writer who penned the essay, set out with an answer in search of a question, a conclusion about systematic indifference to rape which she needed the right story to backfill. If she had written a fictional account of a rape that met all her article’s needs, I can’t imagine it would have been too different than the horrifying one that issued from Jackie, which should have set off alarm bells then…”

A “true crime reporter” who seemingly plays fast and loose with the facts or worse, fails to adequately vet the statements of those making the allegations? This is emblematic of a dogmatic, subversive ideology held with a rigor that would do Ayman al-Zawahiri proud, either that or Ms. Bruenig should consider buying a ticket to Vienna.

Practitioners of these spiritualized ideologies, as Babbit called them, feel duty bound to observe the prime directive, furthering the revolution. Working towards that goal is all consuming, and we must assume, somewhat fulfilling perhaps in the same sense that a Catholic would feel having completed a Novena or a Muslim making the hajj.

As used by Ms. Bruenig, the technique of reasoning with the conclusion already assumed is exemplary of the aforementioned Marxist technique of “structural analysis.” The target is identified, isolated and then killed by fragmenting it into a set of components which though they bear little resemblance to reality, can nonetheless be re-arranged to confirm the critique. We find it instructive that within Ms. B’s defense of the indefensible she actually incorporates the term, “structural” so it stands to reason that she might be conversant with the cultural Marxism which serves as a wrapper for the methodology. That there is great similarity between this vivisectionist attack on the West and the techniques taught by Saul Alinsky shouldn’t be overlooked. This is entirely understandable since there’s nearly a 100% concordance as to intent and principles involved between the two.

Thus, one is bigoted merely upon the assertion [“we know the U.S. is a racist society because it is”]. The process is rational only within the confines of that particular belief system because from the outside it’s obviously agendized and manipulative. Broad societal indictments of our way of life are the analogue of the self-criticism sessions which widely took place in the Soviet Union and Mao’s Red China. It's a way of shaming people into the new orthodoxy by forced confessions of not being totally committed to the cause or of failing to have measured up to some, often evanescent, standard.

In this way Rigoberta Menchu’s gut wrenchingly untrue tale still retains great vibrancy within those in the anti-Western/anti-capitalist bund despite it having been proven fraudulent. These kabuki dances serve a political god who demands complete fealty. Any method of arriving there is acceptable, despite a trail littered by ruined lives and reputations.

All of these examples demonstrate just how radically the culture has been with great forethought, turned on its head. The alternative reality we have seen constructed around us has been designed to preclude efforts to reverse the process. If you oppose the increasing frequency of instances where the American judiciary is deferring to the Shari’a, you are by definition an Islamophobe. If you take issue with gay marriage upon the very reasonable belief that “marriage” as an historic institution has been for thousands of years unquestionably defined as a union between man and woman, you’re homophobic. If you believe that the efforts of the Department of Justice and the national security apparatus should be directed against individuals and organizations whose spiritualized ideology screams jihad, you’re a bigot. If you object to any of the attributes of the new order a suitable adjective will be used to culturally shame and ostracize you. Perhaps it will take a more direct approach...a knock on the door from the IRS or maybe the ancestral farm will be ruled by the EPA to be wetlands and thus effectively seized without compensation or anything resembling due process.

There will be consequences

If you rise in opposition to what has and continues to take place at a quickening pace you will - if nothing else - be labeled generically as a “hater,” as risible that as that term is under these circumstances. It’s a vituperative, all-encompassing phrase used to stigmatize those for whom the transformationalists haven't yet constructed a specific pejorative. The goal of these people is to criminalize dissent to what Robert Bork [who had a rather intimate understanding of the process] called Slouching Towards Gomorrah and indicative of what Allan Bloom argued in, The Closing of the American Mind.

With the former counter culture - allied with its fellow radical Muslims - having so deeply infiltrated the governmental infrastructure, the entire weight of the state is already being used as a club against dissenters. Once the targeting coordinates are selected, in short order huge legal fees accrue to those caught in the crosshairs. Arrayed against these "enemies of the state," could well be hundreds of salaried investigators, attorneys, prosecutors and the like.

If the plaintiff triumphs, there is little recourse, and less mercy.

If the defendant wins, the victory is hollow as the cost of a successful defense can easily bankrupt [by design] even the largest corporations. The defensive strategy then becomes to seek a plea bargain in order to avoid the worst of the draconian consequences. Often this is in the form of an enormous fine, a “settlement,” "mitigation," or as it’s termed on the street, a shakedown for protection money.

This is the great evil - very much like an auto-immune disease - which now confronts the nations of the no-longer so “Free World,” which are quickly losing their vitality and cultural confidence. The process is unfolding in an atmosphere in which Western tradition is under continuous assault but has lost the will to defend itself for numerous reasons, one of which sadly, is because a significant plurality have been convinced that the “system” is no longer worthy of defense.

At some point a process not unlike Oslo Syndrome becomes operative. As Dr. Levin's theory is examined in The Oslo Syndrome, Delusions of a People under Siege, he, "...shows how a tiny nation, living under constant siege by neighbors who reject its very existence, was induced by its intellectual classes to believe that its own misdeeds had incited Arab hatred and violence, and that what required reform was not Arab dictatorship and Islamist Jew-hatred but the reform of (other) Jews." Though the subject here is the state of Israel, the psychological process applies to other cultures which after having been subjected to decades of psychological rape, eventually come to identify with its oppressors.

The disintegration of societal cohesion is quickened as older generations are naturally replaced by those coming up through the ranks who don't see America through their elders' eye. More fully explained, whereas generational change is inevitable, as the gray beards drift into obscurity they also take with them the traditions upon which the republic has relied for so long. As the fresh upstarts work their way through the educational system they become acclimated to a country which bears little resemblance to historical reality. These students are intentionally being deprived of their history, which through countless examples testifies as to the basic goodness of Western Civilization and its efforts to self-correct the types of injustices which all human societies have. Instead they are taught the opposite, that the West is based upon a voracious imperialistic capitalism which has stolen the riches of the world for itself.

Because this type of pedagogy is designed more with indoctrination in mind rather than education, many of the millennials lack the most basic of critical thinking skills. What is there to think about anyway, since the truth is written on the modern equivalent of stone tablets?

This is a decoupling process that destroys any sense of continuity, of being part of a larger, more grand and exceptional experience which itself has merit. Engaging in the defense of traditional America under such constraints comes at great cost. The result, as we witness every day, is tragic. In academic environments the leftist cant is so rigidly enforced that even students who disagree with the radicalism of their often demonstrably half-witted professors, toe the party line because they know that dissent within the classroom is uniformly punished with a heavy thumb on the grading scale.

In a more concrete sense, the attack on Western culture takes place in a world which is oft times not recognizable, one  in which it is rapidly becoming illegal2. for cultures to defend themselves. Just because terrorism and Islam are inextricably linked during this era - the refrain goes - that's no reason for law enforcement to “profile” Muslims at airports or massively surveil mosques; doing so is "bigoted" and will ultimately be adjudicated in a setting where the legal system has undergone these same profound changes. When a single jurist on the U.S. Supreme Court can, almost unalterably, change the country overnight, something is terribly wrong. Israel’s imperious high court has taken this to such extraordinary extremes that it has usurped the legislative as well as the executive power. The United States isn’t quite there yet, but it’s racing to keep up.

In failing to challenge ascendant, confident and highly aggressive ideologies we allow mortal enemies to convince us to put the gun to our own collective head and pull the trigger. A vital constituency within what is left of the “old order" as well as the brash young upstarts have been intentionally deceived into believing that the culture is cancerous. That this critique is leveled from the lap of the most decent, affluent and generous society history has yet produced only adds to the irony.

Strong, resilient societies will not long thrive if they allow themselves to be destroyed through the abuse of the very freedoms which define them in the first place, thus, “’sabotaging’ its miserable house by their own hand.”

When nations lose their souls, their days are numbered.

In summation, it’s not too late. Hope continues to burn within the breast of many good men and women. However, it’s getting very late in the day to halt the process, let alone gear up into reactionary mode and wrest the culture back from those who are in the process of destroying it. The sooner a counter attack is mounted against the forces which are fully committed to destruction of the last best hope of mankind the better are the chances of success. We should consider ourselves duty bound to follow Churchill’s inspiring rhetoric spoken in 1940, during Britain’s darkest days.

“Whatever the cost may be, we shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the field and in the streets, we shall fight them in the hills…we shall never surrender.”

These are only words, despite the soaring rhetoric, but this sentiment of resistance to the end is essential and must be followed by the actions of a people committed with a fervor not seen since the Second World War. The stakes here are no less, the fact that the threat is so well ensconced within in the halls of power makes it all the more important to act now.

End notes:

1. Preface: How does the Palestinian issue relate to the central core of our thesis? The simple answer is that it's a near perfect example of how language manipulation, false narratives as well as ethnic and religious bigotry, driven by spiritualized ideologies - in this case Islam - can bring about an astounding cultural transformation. The process has been so effective that thousands of innocents have been killed in its service and a powerless and destitute Arab population has been denied the most basic of human rights - by their own people - simply to make a political point by keeping an open wound festering. The "Palestinians" have been inculcated from birth into a culture of death, convinced that their plight is due to the "evil" actions of the Israelis and "Zionists" when the truth is that their lives would be far worse absent the largesse and military restraint of the Israeli people. Under the constant bombardment of lies, deceit and indoctrination, the culture is steeped in a suffocating atmosphere where toddlers are given plastic AK-47s and dressed in the colors of HAMAS in preparation for the day when they will have the "opportunity" to become a shahada, a "martyr," dying in some senseless act of terrorism designed only to inflict as much pain as possible while stoking the fires of an endless intifada.

The term Palestinian is in fact a misnomer. There is and never has been a country called Palestine, nor are there an ethnically distinct group of people who can rightfully claim to be Palestinian. These people are Arabs. More specifically they're really squatters in an area more correctly identified as Judea and Samaria. If some kind of [distant] nationality must be bestowed on this area, the West Bank, then it can be thought of as the remnant of the Western part of the Kingdom of Transjordan, an ephemeral state created by the British mandate with no organic basis.

Regardless, the truth isn't pretty, the entity and people now so commonly referred to, respectively as, Palestine and Palestinian were created specifically to support the concept of Islamic jihadist expansionism.
This isn't an idle claim because not that long ago even fanatical members of Yasser Arafat's murderous Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO, responsible for the 1972 atrocity carried out at the Olympics against the Israeli team] have unblushingly admitted that the concept is simply a political device of convenience.

Below we offer a commentary made Zuheir Mohsen, a high ranking member of the PLO in the late 1970s to a Dutch newspaper, Trouw and present two different translations or versions, both of which make the same case regarding the non-existence of "Palestine" except as a divisive political tool:

"Between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of ONE people, the Arab nation. Look, I have family members with Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian citizenship. We are ONE people. Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel and for Arab unity. A separate Palestinian entity needs to fight for the national interest in the then remaining occupied territories. The Jordanian government cannot speak for Palestinians in Israel, Lebanon or Syria. Jordan is a state with specific borders. It cannot lay claim on - for instance - Haifa or Jaffa, while I AM entitled to Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem and Beersheba. Jordan can only speak for Jordanians and the Palestinians in Jordan. The Palestinian state would be entitled to represent all Palestinians in the Arab world en elsewhere. Once we have accomplished all of our rights in all of Palestine, we shouldn't postpone the unification of Jordan and Palestine for one second." [source, Wiki, Zuheir Mohsen]

"Mohsens arrangement is not so surprising. Listening to his political and ideological views can sometimes feel not suppress that maybe has changed less than originally assumed in the Arab world. According to Mohsen stand, there is in fact no separate Palestinian people. "In between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, there are no differences. We are part of one people, the Arab nation. Look, I have family members with the Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian citizenship. We are one people. Merely for political reasons, we endorse carefully our Palestinian identity. Indeed, it is of national importance for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians in front of Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is only for tactical reasons. The Foundation of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the struggle against Israel and for Arab unity. The strategy intends to follow Mohsen is quite simple: " A separate Palestinian entity must defend the national rights over the remaining occupied territories , the Jordanian Government cannot speak on behalf of the Palestinians in Israel , Lebanon or Syria, Jordan is a state. . with certain limits. it cannot claim instance Haifa or Jaffa, while I do have right to Haifa , Jaffa , Jerusalem and Beërsheva . Jordan can only speak for the Jordanians and the Palestinians in Jordan . the Palestinian state would have the right to act on behalf of all Palestinians in the Arab world and elsewhere. When we have once acquired our rights in all of Palestine , we have to postpone the reunification of Jordan and Palestine for a moment" [source, Google translate]

Translated from:

“ Mohsens opstelling is niet zo verbazingwekkend. Luisterend naar zijn politieke en ideologische opvattingen kan men soms het gevoel niet onderdrukken dat er misschien in de Arabische wereld toch minder is veranderd dan oorspronkelijk werd aangenomen. Volgens Mohsen bestaat er namelijk in feite geen apart Palestijns volk. "Tussen Jordaniërs, Palestijnen, Syriërs en Libanezen bestaan er geen verschillen. Wij maken deel uit van één volk, de Arabische natie. Kijk maar, ik heb familieleden met het Palestijnse, Libanese, Jordaanse en Syrische staatsburgerschap. Wij zijn één volk. Alleen maar om politieke redenen onderschrijven wij zorgvuldig onze Palestijnse identiteit. Het is namelijk van nationaal belang voor de Arabieren om het bestaan van de Palestijnen aan te moedigen tegenover het zionisme. Ja, het bestaan van een aparte Palestijnse identiteit is er alleen om tactische redenen. De stichting van een Palestijnse staat is een nieuw middel om de strijd tegen Israel en voor de Arabische eenheid voort te zetten. Ook de strategie die Mohsen wil volgen is vrij simpel: "Een aparte Palestijnse entiteit moet voor de nationale rechten opkomen in de dan nog overgebleven bezette gebieden. De Jordaanse regering kan niet namens de Palestijnen in Israel, Libanon of Syrië spreken. Jordanië is een staat met bepaalde grenzen. Het kan geen aanspraak maken op bijvoorbeeld Haifa of Jaffa, terwijl ik wel recht heb op Haifa, Jaffa, Jeruzalem en Beërsheva. Jordanië kan alleen spreken namens de Jordaniërs en de Palestijnen in Jordanië. De Palestijnse staat zou het recht hebben om op te treden namens alle Palestijnen in de Arabische wereld en elders. Als wij eenmaal al onze rechten in geheel Palestina hebben verworven, moeten wij de hereniging van Jordanië en Palestina geen moment uitstellen." [source James Dorsey, Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden, Trouw, 31 March 1977]

2. Regarding the strategy of the Islamist battle to make self-defense by the West illegal there is probably no better example than that of what has come to be known as the case of the “Flying Imams.” The technique itself has a name...lawfare...warfare against the culture waged within the American court system [please refer to The Lawfare Project].

We believe that this story, now almost a decade old is concrete proof of the serious nature of the so far, effective, attack on our institutions, freedoms and liberty itself by the spiritual-like transformational ideologies. It's the stone-cold face of "culture jihad," and one would be remiss not to be concerned.

The executive summary of the incident is straightforward:

“Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight…[having engaged in] behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers…Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted “Allah” when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix. Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks — two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin…” [source, How The Imams Terrorized An Airliner, Washington Times, November 28, 2006]

Left almost entirely unreported was the fact that the imams were returning from a weekend conference of the North American Imams Federation where they were specifically being trained in media manipulation strategies. [view the NAIF 2006 brochure, 2006 North American Imams Federation Convention, Minneapolis]

Expanding upon a piece we published on December 1, 2006:

The imams designed the event as an experiment in how far they might be able to manipulate the media. Any criticism of their actions was framed as religious discrimination and bigotry so it's not surprising in the least that Representative Keith Ellison [D-MN, a speaker at the NAIF conference] injected himself into this controversy, demanding high level meetings with the Minneapolis airport managers as well as US Airways.

The goal of all of this was to batter the airline and security into submission through fear of financial liability.

The six imams operated straight out of the handbook prepared for the NAIF imam conference which described how imams should handle the media.

"Islam is now almost constantly on the news, and Imams must be capable of dealing effectively with the media. Good communication skills encompass being able to respond to media inquires , fielding questions from journalists, addressing information about Islam and the media, generating positive story ideals, and writing letters to the editor when necessary. Communication should not be limited to responding to misconceptions, but Imams should also take advantage of opportunities to highlight activities in local mosques and the contribution of Muslims to local communities." [source, Beila Rabinowitz, William Mayer, Imam's Minneapolis Airport Stunt - Cultural Jihad ,]

Judged by their actions, these imams were waging psychological warfare - cultural jihad - a political act calculated to globally degrade American airport security by linking the taking of reasonable precautions with anti-Muslim bigotry.

At the time, the question remained as to whether U.S. Airways would hold its ground and resist the gambit. We counseled that the airline should refuse to meet with the imams, their representatives and Congressman Ellison who saw in the controversy, an opportunity to use his newly acquired political clout to promote the Islamist agenda. We further suggested that the Department of Justice investigate the incident as a conspiracy intended to destroy reasonable and prudent airport security measures, thus enabling future airline based terrorist activities. But the timorous GW Bush administration simply didn't want to go there.

Due to overwhelming pressure, the air carrier eventually caved but in retrospect it's clear that under present conditions, nothing could have affected the outcome. A civil case was initiated [using attorneys supplied by the Council on American Islamic Relations], went to trial and was shockingly decided on behalf of the plaintiffs, the six imams. A settlement was reached out of court, the dimensions of which remain sealed. Though it has been speculated that only a token amount of money was involved, the establishment of the precedent in case law continues to loom large.

It's clear that the overall strategic goal of this and similar assaults is to take advantage of the malleability of American culture employing the methods outlined in the Muslim Brotherhood’s General Strategic Plan. Thus the United States - in the instant case as well as others in the same genre - has been prevented, by a skewed interpretation of its own legal codes, from defending itself.

In such a toxic environment, the U.S. Constitution does indeed become a suicide pact.

This is a frightening case, demonstrating that the power of transformational ideologies based upon the Gramsci model are quite effective. Perhaps of greater import, it’s demonstrable proof that our culture has already been damaged and placed in peril, having permitted itself to be bullied by Islamist and Marxist thugs and their hired guns.


Homo Sapiens, seems to have locked within its DNA [perhaps something to do with the fundamental evolutionary mandate required for species survival] a quirky mechanism which psychologically grants "permission" to engage in what are normally considered sociopathic or barbaric acts, including doing great violence to others or one's self [dying for a cause] in order to preserve the things which are considered to be so over-archingly important that they are worth securing at any and all cost. Psychologists, sociologists, theologians, etc., have attached a name to these intellectual [or physical] constructs, "sacred objects" and though the term is sometimes used as a jumping off point in pursuit of wild deconstructionist tangents [uniformly directed against the West], the term itself neatly encapsulates the degree of devotion which spriitualized ideologies can and do engender. The use of "sacred objects" as an identifier is helpful in understanding just how powerful ideologies can become, especially in an environment which has been denuded of tradition which though itself can be thought of as a collection of sacred objects, is one which has proven by its very existence, not to be self-destructive. This is the reason why the consideration regarding organic versus imposed change is so central to understanding the current cultural drift and the value of maintaining operationally non-hostile ethical/moral systems.


©2015 LLC, William Mayer. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.