Monday, November 22, 2010

Harper's Clash of Civilizations Exposed: And He's Not a Straussian?

In Lawrence Martin's new book, Harperland, he states that Stephen Harper sees the world not as a global family but as a "clash of civilizations".

Did Martin come to that conclusion after speaking with Harper's friend John Weissenberg, because of an overall plan laid bare, or was it a hunch? (1)

Either way it is an accurate assessment of Harper's foreign policy.

The term "Clash of Civilizations" was first used by a Harvard political scientist named Samuel P. Huntington, who thought that people's cultural and religious identities would be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world.

But it took an American neoconservative, Bernard Lewis (shown above), to adapt Huntington's theories as an excuse for war in the Middle East.

He first used the term in the September 1990 issue of The Atlantic Monthly in a piece called "The Roots of Muslim Rage" and formulated it as a theory in a 1992 lecture at the American Enterprise Institute. This would then be developed into a Foreign Affairs article: "The Clash of Civilizations", and it became the blueprint for the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

The American Enterprise Institute, dubbed the Cheney-family think tank, were responsible for overseeing the strategy, and in fact Harper insider David Frum, who was a speech writer for Bush, was the one who coined the term 'Axis of Evil'.

In March of 2007, Lewis won the Irving Kristol Award for his influence behind the invasion of Iraq, and he like most of the other key players has drifted into oblivion, hoping history will be kind.

Journalist Jacob Weisberg attended the event and wrote:
It had not been a good week, year, or second term for any of these people, and I thought a few cocktails might provoke them to consider their predicament. This was fantasy on my part. Richard Perle and John Bolton might have looked slightly more saturnine than usual, but the overall mood of self-celebration was unabated. From the stage, one caught no hint that matters were not working out as anticipated. All rose to salute the arrival of Dick and Lynne Cheney, herself a longtime fellow at the institute. The vice president looked on from the head table as his friend Bernard Lewis, perhaps the most significant intellectual influence behind the invasion of Iraq, came up to accept the Irving Kristol Award.

In his address, the 90-year-old Lewis did not revisit his argument that regime change in Iraq would provide the jolt needed to modernize the Middle East. Instead, he spoke at length about the millennial struggle between Christianity and Islam. Lewis argues that Muslims have adopted migration, along with terror, as the latest strategy in their "cosmic struggle for world domination." This is a familiar framework from the original author of the phrase "the clash of civilizations"— (2)
But while these old neocons may have ridden off into the sunset, Stephen Harper is just getting started. His unilateral approach to Israel and rejection of Canada's Muslim population are part of his agenda.

The "Ottawa Protocol" could forbid Canadians from criticizing Israeli foreign policy, or risk being charged with a hate crime. The hostile takeover of Rights and Democracy because they were being too influenced by the notions of humanitarianism, will further support the initiative.

An aggressive stance toward Russia who he is afraid could thwart his plans, and the shift of military maneuvers to the PMO from trained military personnel.

The Bush Administration did not go away. They are now camped on Parliament Hill and our media had better start paying attention. These are not random things. Stephen Harper is motivated by ideology. A "Clash of Civilizations". A Holy War.

Our prime minister has exerted total control over every aspect of government and government communication. I have to read American and foreign newspapers to determine what is happening in my own country.

There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Think. Think. Think.

Maybe it's time to boycott papers who refuse to investigate these important issues. Corruption is one thing, and there's certainly enough of it in Harper's party, but this is aggression unheard of in Canada.

Moral in our military is already low. How can we ask them to do this? Could this be why the Conservatives are recruiting on porn sights with phrases like "Nasty Panty Flash" and "Christian Values". War porn, the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Is this really your Canada? It's definitely not mine.


1. Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 79

2. Party of Defeat: AEI's weird celebration, By Jacob Weisberg, March 14, 2007

1 comment:

  1. Spot on again Emily. I have absolutely no respect for the press in this country because of the way they rolled over for the Harpercons, they let us down as badly as the press let the USA down by not questioning Bush enough on Iraq. The only exception has been the Toronto Star and great bloggers like you.