Origins of Treason
Lately, I've been thinking about the latest exposure of American covert activities in the war on terrorism. As you are no doubt aware, The New York Times came out with an article exposing U.S. efforts to use an international banking database to track the financial dealings of terrorists and their supporters. This leak follows others exposing NSA signals intelligence programs and secret CIA prisons for terrorists (and European support of these prisons). What is it that is driving these leaks and the joyous way the New York Times, and other members of the MSM, has published the information disclosed in these leaks?
I look back at the modern history of terrorism. Going back into the 1960s and 70s, the first type of terrorism most Americans were aware of was communist terrorists. The communist world, headed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), espoused that the only way to continue the spread of world communism was to export it via "terrorist" organization which would take the role of being the "vanguard of the proletariat." So the Cold War saw the rise of terrorist organizations like the Bader-Meinhoff Group (a.k.a. The Red Army Faction, in Germany), the Red Brigades (Italy), the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia or "FARC" (Columbia), and Action Directe (France). While this list is by no means exhaustive, it is representative of the organizations that sought worldwide socialist revolution in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. The idea behind these organizations is that they would infiltrate a given society and foment public discontent with the government and spark an eventual revolution in which the communists would rise to power. These organizations would receive support from the Soviet Union and its client states (members of the Warsaw Pact). Such support would include not only money, but training, equipment and weapons.
How does this tie into our current security woes? I'm glad you asked. As you should be aware, many of today's liberals are constantly urging that the government should take on greater responsibility for society's ills and woes. This effort often borders on outright socialism (e.g., Hillary Clinton's universal healthcare initiative of the early 1990s). Sound familiar? The communist terrorists of the 60s-80s went to whatever lengths to explain how utopian socialist revolution could be. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs!" It sounds good, but the failure of over 70 years of communism has shown the fallacy of good sounding slogans. But, for American liberals, those slogans just sound too good to be left behind.
But the Cold war ended. The foreign policy efforts of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. So now we have no more enemies, right? Wrong. Beginning in the 1980s, we saw the rise of militant Islam. Beirut, Lebanon, Palestine. The philosophy of terrorism changed from communist ideology to radical Muslim theology. Terrorists are no longer seen as extensions of a powerful communist state sponsor. However, just because they no longer wear a uniform, does not take away their status as combatants. The Left has decided that with the fall of communism, there are no more enemies. Therefore, terrorism is a legal/police matter. So we shouldn't engage in combat operations. Because early terrorists claimed to be fighting on behalf of the oppressed peoples (a lie even back then), many liberals see that as the reason for today's terrorism. "If these Muslims were not oppressed by Western foreign policies, they would not be fighting so." That line of reasoning is as much a lie now as it was back in the Cold War days.
Basically, what I am saying is this. Modern liberals identified with the ideology given for communist terror during the Cold War (to throw off oppression) and still see that as being the valid reason for the militant Islamic terror we see today. But they have not seen that world has changed from those "bad old days" of the Cold War. So their sympathies for socialist ideology manifest in a desire to oppose Western (read "American") oppression of Third World and impoverished societies and cultures. "How can we disrupt such policies," they say to themselves. By reporting on anything that portrays the US in a bad light or derails its foreign policy. So, if the New York Times oir the Los Angeles Times should hear about covert American programs, they expose them in order to do their part in fighting oppression.
Which leaves me with one question that I'm not entirely sure I can answer -- how cognizant are the MSM of their underlying motivations? Do they know they are helping to destroy the US? I would love to get your input on this question.
I look back at the modern history of terrorism. Going back into the 1960s and 70s, the first type of terrorism most Americans were aware of was communist terrorists. The communist world, headed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), espoused that the only way to continue the spread of world communism was to export it via "terrorist" organization which would take the role of being the "vanguard of the proletariat." So the Cold War saw the rise of terrorist organizations like the Bader-Meinhoff Group (a.k.a. The Red Army Faction, in Germany), the Red Brigades (Italy), the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia or "FARC" (Columbia), and Action Directe (France). While this list is by no means exhaustive, it is representative of the organizations that sought worldwide socialist revolution in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. The idea behind these organizations is that they would infiltrate a given society and foment public discontent with the government and spark an eventual revolution in which the communists would rise to power. These organizations would receive support from the Soviet Union and its client states (members of the Warsaw Pact). Such support would include not only money, but training, equipment and weapons.
How does this tie into our current security woes? I'm glad you asked. As you should be aware, many of today's liberals are constantly urging that the government should take on greater responsibility for society's ills and woes. This effort often borders on outright socialism (e.g., Hillary Clinton's universal healthcare initiative of the early 1990s). Sound familiar? The communist terrorists of the 60s-80s went to whatever lengths to explain how utopian socialist revolution could be. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs!" It sounds good, but the failure of over 70 years of communism has shown the fallacy of good sounding slogans. But, for American liberals, those slogans just sound too good to be left behind.
But the Cold war ended. The foreign policy efforts of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. So now we have no more enemies, right? Wrong. Beginning in the 1980s, we saw the rise of militant Islam. Beirut, Lebanon, Palestine. The philosophy of terrorism changed from communist ideology to radical Muslim theology. Terrorists are no longer seen as extensions of a powerful communist state sponsor. However, just because they no longer wear a uniform, does not take away their status as combatants. The Left has decided that with the fall of communism, there are no more enemies. Therefore, terrorism is a legal/police matter. So we shouldn't engage in combat operations. Because early terrorists claimed to be fighting on behalf of the oppressed peoples (a lie even back then), many liberals see that as the reason for today's terrorism. "If these Muslims were not oppressed by Western foreign policies, they would not be fighting so." That line of reasoning is as much a lie now as it was back in the Cold War days.
Basically, what I am saying is this. Modern liberals identified with the ideology given for communist terror during the Cold War (to throw off oppression) and still see that as being the valid reason for the militant Islamic terror we see today. But they have not seen that world has changed from those "bad old days" of the Cold War. So their sympathies for socialist ideology manifest in a desire to oppose Western (read "American") oppression of Third World and impoverished societies and cultures. "How can we disrupt such policies," they say to themselves. By reporting on anything that portrays the US in a bad light or derails its foreign policy. So, if the New York Times oir the Los Angeles Times should hear about covert American programs, they expose them in order to do their part in fighting oppression.
Which leaves me with one question that I'm not entirely sure I can answer -- how cognizant are the MSM of their underlying motivations? Do they know they are helping to destroy the US? I would love to get your input on this question.
Posts
