The concepts of, "public debate," and, "tolerance for opposing views," is today used as a tool of subversion. Subvert means to undermine or corrupt. When so-called, "conservative," media allow themselves to be used as a platform for collectivist and socialist views, the principles of individual liberty and republican limited government are corrupted.
The recent example of the supposedly conservative New Hampshire newspaper, The Union Leader article, "Al-Qaida is not the mafia, it’s an ideological movement" By Peter Bergen, is also an example of the subtlety by which the leftist subversion is being put over.
The first impression is that this article is going to be about the threat al-Qaida terrorists are to the free world. But, from the beginning, the intention is something altogether different.
"THE ATTACKS in Madrid, Spain, ... suggest that the al-Qaida network remains very much in business. Despite the fact that two wars have been fought in the name of winning the 'war on terrorism' and untold billions of dollars have been spent in an effort to break the back of al-Qaida, the attacks came as a total surprise, killing more than 200 people."
This means the killing of over 200 people in Madrid by al-Qaida terrorists is the fault of the failed, expensive, and deadly, U.S. war. The reason for the failure, the article asserts, is because the true nature of al-Qaida is misunderstood. "Al-Qaida is not like some Mafia family; if you capture or kill all the members of a Mafia family, it will simply cease to exist. Since Sept. 11, al-Qaida the group has been morphing into al-Qaida the ideological movement....
The ideological movement did not begin on Sept 11. Mr. Bergen is only off by about 1400 years. The ideological movement responsible for the hideous bombing of innocent citizens in Spain, and all the other horrible terrorist acts before and after Sept.11 by Muslim terrorists groups, including Al-Qaida, began in 600 AD and is called Islam.
Mr. Bergen does not even know what that ideology is. It is not "a fervent opposition to Western policy in the Middle East and the desire for the rule of Islamic law across the Muslim world." It is, "a fervent hate of Western civilization and the intention of imposing Islamic law on the entire world." Islam hates Western civilization because it is the only thing standing between Muslim anti-civilized domination of the world, and civilization itself.
Mr. Bergen does recognize that terrorism is war. He says, "... we have barely begun the war with al-Qaida and its affiliated groups because many thousands of underemployed, disaffected Muslims will continue to embrace bin Laden’s doctrine of violent anti-Westernism. He does not mention the fact that it is the backward, repressive, culture-hating and superstitious religion of Islam itself that keeps Muslims "underemployed," and impoverished, and also does not mention that most of al-Qaida's elite are wealthy.
He points out Ayman Zawahin wrote, "it took two centuries to eject the Crusaders from the Middle East in the Middle Ages" and "despite the fact that Muslims have not controlled any part of Spain for more than five centuries, one of al-Qaida’s oft-stated aims has been to return Andalusia, in southern Spain, to the orbit of Muslim rule."
In spite of Mr. Bergen's efforts to portray the horrors of terrorism across the world as the work of an especially disaffected faction within the Muslim world, it is in fact historic Islam itself that is the ideology behind all terrorism. al-Qaida is merely the latest manifestation of Islam's perennial militant aggression, stretching back to Spain, the Middle ages, and to Medina itself. To say that it is not Islam attacking Western civilization, only a militant faction, is exactly the same as saying it is not the United States that invaded Iraq, only its army.
Where Corruption Comes From
 Peter Bergan, (second from right) with his friends, Peter Arnett, Osama bin Laden, and Peter Jouvenal |
It evidently does not occur to these deep thinkers at The New America Foundation it is the plethora of, "public policy solutions," we already have that is the cause of most, "social problems," both foreign and domestic, and the last thing we need is a bunch of leftist crackpots thinking up new schemes for solving the problems of the world and the country.
There is no danger that any new ideas are going to emerge, however. It turns out the "new ideas" are all the same tired old altruist/collectivist claptrap dressed up in new pseudo-intellectual language, and the only thing really new, is they are less cogent or meaningful, and more confusing than ever.
As an example of the new "soft" push for collectivism/altruist globalist socialism, both pseudo-intellectual and inclusivist, from their American Strategy Project page:
"The goals of U.S. foreign policy should remain what they have traditionally been—the safety of the American nation, in a world order characterized by the gradual diffusion of peace, prosperity and international cooperation." But, when was the "diffusion of peace, prosperity, and international cooperation," gradual or otherwise, ever the goal of U.S. foreign policy except in the eyes and minds of liberal socialists.
These non-goals, they say, must be pursued using, "... new methods adapted to a world transformed by technological revolution, demographic upheaval, and environmental degradation," a lovely mix of contradictory concepts which at once blames foreign problems on technology (e.g. "environment degradation") and demographic upheaval, whatever that is supposed to be.
They are going to do this by providing "a forum where the leading minds" [read collectivist/socialist] "of the next generation along with veterans of public service" [read ex-politicians/bureaucrats, or anyone whose only occupation has been tax-payer funded].
Under their, "Grand Strategy," "the most promising alternative", to current and past foreign policy, "would combine tough-minded realism with pragmatic idealism in a new grand strategy joining U.S. support for great-power military and diplomatic cooperation in managing regional crises" [read, US sovereignty is surrendered to UN control] "with an American commitment" [read "American money"]" to promoting social and economic development throughout the global South .... In the long run, the best way to ensure American safety in a dangerous world is to make the world less dangerous." In other words, the United States will be safe when it willingly surrenders to every two-bit dictator and third world nation in the world.
Some Subversive Pseudo-concepts
There are certain terms and phrases that continually show up in leftist and collectivist literature. The above is full of them. Their purpose is always the same, to subtly blame the problems of the world on the West, particularly Americans, for not doing enough [not giving away enough of their money] or doing too much [unapologetically defending their lives and property]. Here are a few typical ones that will be helpful to anyone interested in spotting such subversion. You will find it in everything from television advertisements to grade school lesson plans. Key words have been emphasized.
public policy solutions
international cooperation
demographic upheaval
environmental degradation
veterans of public service
public debate
formulate a new consensus
compelling vision of America’s role in the world
pragmatic idealism (?)
managing regional crises
promoting social and economic development
global South
In case you are not familiar with this last phrase, it means, the poverty and social horrors in all those countries south of the equator are caused by the economic and social success of those countries north of the equator, and has nothing to do with the oppressive governments in the impoverished global South.