In today’s modernity, Islam is principally subverted in the same mold by introducing “beneficial cognitive diversity” (sic!) into that original singular formulation of “straight-path”.
The sophistication of Islam’s subversion however that is evidently running circles around the Muslim mind today, relies in the employment of complex political theory called Hegelian Dialectic: invent two or more opposing and polarized ideologies (or lies), say one entirely militant, and the other entirely spiritual, and get them to clash by forcing people to choose between them while perniciously harvesting each one in the greater service of “imperial mobilization”. This is the underlying philosophy in the “good Muslim” vs. “bad Muslim” dialectic, and in Presidential statements like “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”. The conflict that is naturally seeded in any clash of the opposites is an opportunity for birth-panging something far greater from the burnt ashes left behind. Tortuous processes so unleashed upon the unsuspecting public can leave so much confusion and chaos in its wake that as David Ben Gurion had explained the purpose of seeding controlled chaos: “what is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times”. And the Council on Foreign Relations proposed exactly that same modus operandi to seed world government:
‘In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.’
Watch the fabrication of the Hegelian Dialectic of “militant Islam” vs. “moderate Islam” in the following two videos. Both are officially sponsored by the ruling establishment of the Hectoring Hegemons to promulgate their respective asininity and myriad conflicts among the Muslim masses for a purpose so diabolical that it can only be fully comprehended in the domain of political theory with dynamic systems analysis, and not by studying each component separately. This is primarily the reason most Muslims, while knowing that there is something wrong with the ‘War on Terror’ in that the way the UK-US-EU axis of evil is going about it only creates more terror, remain perpetually confused by what is it that the West really wants when it arbitrarily seems to support opposites simultaneously. Inextricably caught between suicide bombers and F-16s, and between neo-colonialism and struggle for daily bread, most clutch at every strawman spun by any detracting snake-oil salesman in town. Thus we see the proliferation of conspiracy theories and asinine explanations with the concomitant “beneficial cognitive diversity” which it naturally engenders.
This is because, as Bertrand Russell had put it in the aftermath of the idiocy of World War I in Proposed Roads to Freedom: “Man is naturally competitive, acquisitive, and, in a greater or less degree, pugnacious. When the Press tells him that so-and-so is his enemy, a whole set of instincts in him responds to the suggestion. … If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance with his instincts, he will accept it even on the slenderest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way, and much of what is currently believed in international affairs is no better then myth.”
And almost exactly 80 years later, on the eve of the commencement of World War IV, Philip D. Zelikow, the man who was later to be put in charge of the 9/11 Commission as its Executive Director, described the same gullibility of a public to believe in vicariously planted myths thusly: ‘Public Assumptions’ Shape Views of History: “Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community. The sources for such presumptions are both personal (from direct experience) and vicarious (from books, movies, and myths).”’
In this ultra-sophisticated landscape of engineering consent by brilliant hegemonic minds, our own learned scholars, news media, politicians, establishmentarians, have all been so co-opted that they willingly lead the Newspeak chorus on the myths of ‘war on terror’, taliban, al-qaeeda song and dance routine as the House Negroes of the West. Our best minds have turned Native Informant. So who is left to explain Realityspeak to the Muslims?
“ The white establishment is skilled in flattering and cultivating emerging leaders. It presses its own image on them and finally, from imitation of manners, dress, and style of living, a deeper strain of corruption develops. This kind of Negro leader acquires the white man’s contempt for the ordinary Negro. He is often more at home with the middle-class white than he is among his own people. His language changes, his location changes, his income changes, and ultimately he changes from the representative of the Negro to the white man into the white man’s representative to the Negro. The tragedy is that too often he does not recognize what has happened to him. ”