"Mr Pope had a plum job and respects the [Wall Street] Journal for being an honest newspaper. But all the same he had deep trouble with its editing criteria, especially regarding anything destined for its coveted front page. By means of omissions and headlines, editors, in his view, would turn out finished stories that were politically correct in the context of America’s pro-Israeli and anti-Islamist beliefs. The demand, particularly concerning Arab-Israeli affairs, was for upbeat stories reporting good news about what the author calls the “virtual world” of the peace process."
This extract is from a review of Hugh Pope's book "Dining with al-Qaeda" (Thomas Dunne) which appeared in the Economist (March 6, 2010).
This is how civil society, in the guise of the AIPAC and Christian fundamentalists, has turned newspapers into political mouthpieces. This was inevitable: "In no country in the world has the principle of association been more successfully used, or more unsparingly applied to a multitude of different objects, than in America," wrote Alexis de Tocqueville.
What is freedom to the Americans, is literally death to non-Americans. But for Wikileaks we would never have known that Israel deliberately maintained the economy of the Gaza strip "on the brink of collapse" without "pushing it over the edge," a leaked US diplomatic cable from 2008 showed.
This shows that the US government has been captured by civil society of a nasty type, and that US newspapers are unwilling to tell their readers the truth about the world.
In Bangladesh our biddable intellectuals are constantly touting the benefits of democracy and civil society to please their American masters, and so shut our eyes to the twin evils.
Showing posts with label civil society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil society. Show all posts
Friday, January 7, 2011
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
civil society and violence
According to Chris Hedges' analysis, civil society - the churches and synagogues - have been directly complicit in the violence of war. That is not surprising: civil society has a long and dishonourable record as an instigator of violence from the Inquisition to the slave trade.
On the other hand, Islamic civilisation has hardly any civil society: western donors are busy trying to create one. Heaven forbid!
Take jihad. According to the Britannica, jihad is a recent phenomenon (I mean, of course, after the initial 100-year expansion of the Muslim world); when the west began to colonise the Muslims world, only dervishes, according to Bernard Lewis, showed some resistance.
Jihad was revived (after a brief spell in Africa) by the Americans when confronted with expansionist communism in Afghanistan. Since then, the same holy war - with almost the same personnel - has been turned against the west. And how many people have the jihadis killed? A couple of thousand.
It is interesting that the article does not mention the number of children murdered through sanctions in Iraq between the two Gulf wars: 1.7 million. During the height of the sanctions, a lower figure (still seven-digit), was cited by Norman Finkelstein in his book "The Holocaust Industry". When the figure stood at 500,000, he observes, Madeleine Albright went on prime time TV to say that it 'was worth it'.
Is it surprising that jihadis should try to hurt the west? Is 911 really a conundrum?
On the other hand, Islamic civilisation has hardly any civil society: western donors are busy trying to create one. Heaven forbid!
Take jihad. According to the Britannica, jihad is a recent phenomenon (I mean, of course, after the initial 100-year expansion of the Muslim world); when the west began to colonise the Muslims world, only dervishes, according to Bernard Lewis, showed some resistance.
Jihad was revived (after a brief spell in Africa) by the Americans when confronted with expansionist communism in Afghanistan. Since then, the same holy war - with almost the same personnel - has been turned against the west. And how many people have the jihadis killed? A couple of thousand.
It is interesting that the article does not mention the number of children murdered through sanctions in Iraq between the two Gulf wars: 1.7 million. During the height of the sanctions, a lower figure (still seven-digit), was cited by Norman Finkelstein in his book "The Holocaust Industry". When the figure stood at 500,000, he observes, Madeleine Albright went on prime time TV to say that it 'was worth it'.
Is it surprising that jihadis should try to hurt the west? Is 911 really a conundrum?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Real Stigma
"Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous."
- Exodus 16:19
They say that the stigma that attached to Bangladesh has been removed with the trial and hanging of the assassins of Sheikh Mujib, supposedly the pater patriae.
Really?
The real stigma has been permanently reinforced.
And the real stigma is the fact that you have to be a very powerful person to exact revenge in the guise of justice in Bangladesh. You have to get hold of the entire state power and get the press and the flunkeys of the so-called civil society on your side, undermine the judiciary, and secure the lynching you desire.
And if you are a poor man whose daughter has been raped and murdered by student politicians, then there is no way in this world that you are going to get justice. In the next world, yes, but not in this diabolical den of despair; for here every injunction from the book of Exodus above has been violated: yet seven righteous men refused to hear the case.
- Exodus 16:19
They say that the stigma that attached to Bangladesh has been removed with the trial and hanging of the assassins of Sheikh Mujib, supposedly the pater patriae.
Really?
The real stigma has been permanently reinforced.
And the real stigma is the fact that you have to be a very powerful person to exact revenge in the guise of justice in Bangladesh. You have to get hold of the entire state power and get the press and the flunkeys of the so-called civil society on your side, undermine the judiciary, and secure the lynching you desire.
And if you are a poor man whose daughter has been raped and murdered by student politicians, then there is no way in this world that you are going to get justice. In the next world, yes, but not in this diabolical den of despair; for here every injunction from the book of Exodus above has been violated: yet seven righteous men refused to hear the case.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
the clever will not be in paradise
I came across the following masterpiece the other day:
Aksar ahl al jannat ablah, ai pisar,
Bahr in guft sultan ul bashar
Ziraki chun bad kibr-angez tust
Ablahe shu ta bamanad din durust."
JALALUDDIN RUMI.
"For this cause,O son, the Prince of men declared
The majority of those in Paradise are the foolish.
Cleverness is as a wind raising storms of pride,
Be foolish, so that your heart may be at peace."
Immediately, I thought of the clever people of Bangladesh - the so-called educated men and women, our 'thinking' elite.
Take the economists who backed Sheikh Mujib: they thought they knew everything, that they had wisdom enough to determine the future of 70 million people. In the event, as we all know, thousands died through violence and starvation, not to mention the hundreds of thousands that perished in the civil war. People like Rehman Sobhan, Mozaffer Ahmed, Mosharraf Hossain...were 'clever', and they are still 'clever', backing 'democracy' and 'civil society', terms too big for me to understand.
Now, we have 'clever' fools, who pride themselves on thinking like white people, our former masters...Mahfuz Anam, Zafar Sobhan, son of Rehman, Rowshan Jahan, wife of Mozaffer Ahmed, Abul Barkat, the partisan economist, Ali Zakr, an Indian patriot, Rownaq Jahan, wife of Rehman Sobhan, importer of ideas from American universities, my cousin in the United States who thinks I am unintelligent for not believing in democracy....So many clever people.
These people are all 'zirak', Persian for 'clever'. I don't know if they'll go to paradise or not, but I know they have made life hell for their compatriots - those who are not 'zirak'.
Aksar ahl al jannat ablah, ai pisar,
Bahr in guft sultan ul bashar
Ziraki chun bad kibr-angez tust
Ablahe shu ta bamanad din durust."
JALALUDDIN RUMI.
"For this cause,O son, the Prince of men declared
The majority of those in Paradise are the foolish.
Cleverness is as a wind raising storms of pride,
Be foolish, so that your heart may be at peace."
Immediately, I thought of the clever people of Bangladesh - the so-called educated men and women, our 'thinking' elite.
Take the economists who backed Sheikh Mujib: they thought they knew everything, that they had wisdom enough to determine the future of 70 million people. In the event, as we all know, thousands died through violence and starvation, not to mention the hundreds of thousands that perished in the civil war. People like Rehman Sobhan, Mozaffer Ahmed, Mosharraf Hossain...were 'clever', and they are still 'clever', backing 'democracy' and 'civil society', terms too big for me to understand.
Now, we have 'clever' fools, who pride themselves on thinking like white people, our former masters...Mahfuz Anam, Zafar Sobhan, son of Rehman, Rowshan Jahan, wife of Mozaffer Ahmed, Abul Barkat, the partisan economist, Ali Zakr, an Indian patriot, Rownaq Jahan, wife of Rehman Sobhan, importer of ideas from American universities, my cousin in the United States who thinks I am unintelligent for not believing in democracy....So many clever people.
These people are all 'zirak', Persian for 'clever'. I don't know if they'll go to paradise or not, but I know they have made life hell for their compatriots - those who are not 'zirak'.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Israel and civil society
First, the background: the French revolution and nationalism - assimilated Jews were infected by nationalism (who wasn't)? They wanted their own state: against the wishes of the pious Jews - there's a book by Max Simon Nordau [The Project Gutenberg EBook of Zionism and Anti-Semitism, by Max Simon Nordau and Gustav Gottheil, EBook #24186, first published in 1902], which says it very well:
"The premises of political Zionism are that there is a Jewish nation. This is just the point denied by the assimilation Jews [that is, those who believed in assimilation rather than separation], and the spiritless, unctuous, prating rabbis in their pay. Dr. Herzl saw that the first task he had to fulfill was the organizing of a manifestation which should bring before the world, and the Jewish people itself, in modern, comprehensible form the fact of its national existence. He convoked a Zionist congress, which in spite of the most furious attacks and most unscrupulous acts of violence,--the Jewish community of Munich where the congress was originally intended to be held protested against its meeting in that town,--assembled for the first time in Basel, the end of August, 1897, and consisted of two hundred and four selected representatives of the Zionist Jews of both hemispheres."
Here, we see civil society at work: civil society is the bane of civilisation. A determined group of people can hold an entire nation hostage, and generate violence (the expert on Civil society, John Keene, emphasises this point about violence).
There were other associations: the English evangelicals, the financiers, et al.
Today, civil society in America - the AIAPAC, evangelical Christians, the media - have demonised the Arabs (a major aspect of nationalism: according to Keene, The Other is everything and nothing. Nationalism needs enemies - this is an important point.)
It is fascinating how Zionist civil society in America gradually extended its grip - the early Jewish writers used to suppress their Jewish identity (in Dangling Man, only one brief paragraph is about the speaker's Jewishness; later, Saul Bellow would openly wear his Zionist heart on his sleeve - he admits in a short story that he hadn't thought Israel a great idea at one time).
Is Israel a democracy? Very much so! The relationship between democracy, violence and nationalism is deep - but is whispered only in academic circles.
But one thing's for sure - Judaism is not Zionism; they are two antithetical religions.
,
"The premises of political Zionism are that there is a Jewish nation. This is just the point denied by the assimilation Jews [that is, those who believed in assimilation rather than separation], and the spiritless, unctuous, prating rabbis in their pay. Dr. Herzl saw that the first task he had to fulfill was the organizing of a manifestation which should bring before the world, and the Jewish people itself, in modern, comprehensible form the fact of its national existence. He convoked a Zionist congress, which in spite of the most furious attacks and most unscrupulous acts of violence,--the Jewish community of Munich where the congress was originally intended to be held protested against its meeting in that town,--assembled for the first time in Basel, the end of August, 1897, and consisted of two hundred and four selected representatives of the Zionist Jews of both hemispheres."
Here, we see civil society at work: civil society is the bane of civilisation. A determined group of people can hold an entire nation hostage, and generate violence (the expert on Civil society, John Keene, emphasises this point about violence).
There were other associations: the English evangelicals, the financiers, et al.
Today, civil society in America - the AIAPAC, evangelical Christians, the media - have demonised the Arabs (a major aspect of nationalism: according to Keene, The Other is everything and nothing. Nationalism needs enemies - this is an important point.)
It is fascinating how Zionist civil society in America gradually extended its grip - the early Jewish writers used to suppress their Jewish identity (in Dangling Man, only one brief paragraph is about the speaker's Jewishness; later, Saul Bellow would openly wear his Zionist heart on his sleeve - he admits in a short story that he hadn't thought Israel a great idea at one time).
Is Israel a democracy? Very much so! The relationship between democracy, violence and nationalism is deep - but is whispered only in academic circles.
But one thing's for sure - Judaism is not Zionism; they are two antithetical religions.
,
Thursday, March 27, 2008
the perils of civil society
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your reasoned response: I agree with many of the things you say.
America is plural, no doubt: otherwise, how could someone like Finkelstein or Chomsky have ever written what they have.
I have nothing against America per se: there are aspects of the western civilisation that are disquieting.
I'm sure many Americans dislike the Israel lobby: but that doesn't help the Palestinians or the Iraqis at all.
In fact, I don't blame the Israel lobby one iota, either. The problem is deeper than that: the problem is pluralism itself.
I'm sure you're familiar with the theory of civil society: I have written quite a lot on the subject, and if you visit my web page, you will come across most of them (http://www.geocities.com/if6065/farvardin).
A plural society is characterised by a constant struggle among interest/lobby groups: it's a Darwinian struggle: some lobby groups prosper at the expense of others. Take farmers: US and European farmers have lobbied to make sure third world farmers remain in poverty, and also that US and European consumers pay eight times the world price of sugar, for instance. As you'll find in Finkelstein's book, the Israel lobby has made gains, not only at the expense of the Palestinians, but also at the expense of black Americans. This is normal in a pluralist society.
It took the Israel lobby years (decades) to assert itself in America (during the first Arab-Israeli war, the US didn't lift a finger to help Israel; it was Stalin who supplied Czech
weapons and saved the infant state from destruction.)
Finkelstein observes that it was the Israeli success in the 1967 war that clinched America's support for Israel – this is wrong.
In the book, THE AMERICANISATION OF HE HOLOCAUST, the firs chapter observes how Jewish writers in the early 20th century downplayed their Jewishness. Saul Bellow, in Dangling Man, makes a passing remark on Jewishness; later, however, in What Kind of A Day Did You Have (good story!), Jewishness is prominent. Moral: it takes years for civil society to assert itself. Incremental measures, such as, notably, the radio broadcast of the Eichman trial, led to the lodgement of the Israeli identity (not Jewish identity) in the American psyche. I avoid "Jewish identity" because many devout Jews, such as Rabbi Goldstein and Jews Against Zionism, are against Israel: this is a problem that stems from the French revolution: nationalism (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2607.shtml)
The parallel with trade unions will make it very clearer. Trade unions were banned in 19th century Britain on competition grounds. Then they were legalised, workers got the vote and prominent writers (the Fabian society being the most famous), took up their case, and they became a sacred coy.
Forward tot he 1960s and 1970s. The stranglehold of the unions on Britain was obvious (I was thee during the coal-miners strike in the 70s). Britain "was not working" but government were powerless to do anything. This is a superb example of the tail wagging the dog, how a civic group can control the state itself. What about the business lobby? They were powerless.
Then came Mrs. Thatcher – and she used devious and ruthless measures to crush the inions (hence, Iron Lady). I've nothing against British trade unions – this is merely an example of hoe pluralism can be dangerous.
I have written a great deal: I'm sorry about that. But please bear with me. There are two things I wish to say further.
First, the word 'freedom' is so important in western civilisation because it was the only civilisation to practice slavery on a large scale (I know what you're thinking: who built those pyramids!). Pleas see my article: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~acsrrrm/entertext/5_3/ET53SayeedEd.doc
The only noble exceptions were the Roman Empire (NOT the Republic) and the Hellenistic world – precisely because they were monarchies.
Secondly, there is a widespread perception among westerners, and especially Americans, that the Muslim world hates them. Now, I live in a country of 140 million Muslims (the second largest after Indonesia). Among my friends, all are passionately in love with the west (especially America). Despite all the evidence I have tried to garner and share, not one person has ever evinced any displeasure with the west. I know you will find this incredible: but it is a fact. Most Muslims LOVE America.
I was once planning to go and live in the UAE: I was told by friends there that if I had an American passport, not only would I have better pay, but far greater prestige.
I don't know how this misconception has arisen that Muslims hate the west: SOME do; MOST love the west. Not only for financial reasons; most people I know think western civilisation (especially America) is the fountainhead of all that's good and great.
You can see my pathetic attempts to "enlighten" my compatriots in this essay: http://poeticdiversity.org/main/prose.php?recordID=1176&date=2007-12-01
I will end this overlong piece with a quote from a Palestinian who was resident in Dhaka: "Our biggest enemy is the ummah; I don't blame America."
Thank you for your reasoned response: I agree with many of the things you say.
America is plural, no doubt: otherwise, how could someone like Finkelstein or Chomsky have ever written what they have.
I have nothing against America per se: there are aspects of the western civilisation that are disquieting.
I'm sure many Americans dislike the Israel lobby: but that doesn't help the Palestinians or the Iraqis at all.
In fact, I don't blame the Israel lobby one iota, either. The problem is deeper than that: the problem is pluralism itself.
I'm sure you're familiar with the theory of civil society: I have written quite a lot on the subject, and if you visit my web page, you will come across most of them (http://www.geocities.com/if6065/farvardin).
A plural society is characterised by a constant struggle among interest/lobby groups: it's a Darwinian struggle: some lobby groups prosper at the expense of others. Take farmers: US and European farmers have lobbied to make sure third world farmers remain in poverty, and also that US and European consumers pay eight times the world price of sugar, for instance. As you'll find in Finkelstein's book, the Israel lobby has made gains, not only at the expense of the Palestinians, but also at the expense of black Americans. This is normal in a pluralist society.
It took the Israel lobby years (decades) to assert itself in America (during the first Arab-Israeli war, the US didn't lift a finger to help Israel; it was Stalin who supplied Czech
weapons and saved the infant state from destruction.)
Finkelstein observes that it was the Israeli success in the 1967 war that clinched America's support for Israel – this is wrong.
In the book, THE AMERICANISATION OF HE HOLOCAUST, the firs chapter observes how Jewish writers in the early 20th century downplayed their Jewishness. Saul Bellow, in Dangling Man, makes a passing remark on Jewishness; later, however, in What Kind of A Day Did You Have (good story!), Jewishness is prominent. Moral: it takes years for civil society to assert itself. Incremental measures, such as, notably, the radio broadcast of the Eichman trial, led to the lodgement of the Israeli identity (not Jewish identity) in the American psyche. I avoid "Jewish identity" because many devout Jews, such as Rabbi Goldstein and Jews Against Zionism, are against Israel: this is a problem that stems from the French revolution: nationalism (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2607.shtml)
The parallel with trade unions will make it very clearer. Trade unions were banned in 19th century Britain on competition grounds. Then they were legalised, workers got the vote and prominent writers (the Fabian society being the most famous), took up their case, and they became a sacred coy.
Forward tot he 1960s and 1970s. The stranglehold of the unions on Britain was obvious (I was thee during the coal-miners strike in the 70s). Britain "was not working" but government were powerless to do anything. This is a superb example of the tail wagging the dog, how a civic group can control the state itself. What about the business lobby? They were powerless.
Then came Mrs. Thatcher – and she used devious and ruthless measures to crush the inions (hence, Iron Lady). I've nothing against British trade unions – this is merely an example of hoe pluralism can be dangerous.
I have written a great deal: I'm sorry about that. But please bear with me. There are two things I wish to say further.
First, the word 'freedom' is so important in western civilisation because it was the only civilisation to practice slavery on a large scale (I know what you're thinking: who built those pyramids!). Pleas see my article: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~acsrrrm/entertext/5_3/ET53SayeedEd.doc
The only noble exceptions were the Roman Empire (NOT the Republic) and the Hellenistic world – precisely because they were monarchies.
Secondly, there is a widespread perception among westerners, and especially Americans, that the Muslim world hates them. Now, I live in a country of 140 million Muslims (the second largest after Indonesia). Among my friends, all are passionately in love with the west (especially America). Despite all the evidence I have tried to garner and share, not one person has ever evinced any displeasure with the west. I know you will find this incredible: but it is a fact. Most Muslims LOVE America.
I was once planning to go and live in the UAE: I was told by friends there that if I had an American passport, not only would I have better pay, but far greater prestige.
I don't know how this misconception has arisen that Muslims hate the west: SOME do; MOST love the west. Not only for financial reasons; most people I know think western civilisation (especially America) is the fountainhead of all that's good and great.
You can see my pathetic attempts to "enlighten" my compatriots in this essay: http://poeticdiversity.org/main/prose.php?recordID=1176&date=2007-12-01
I will end this overlong piece with a quote from a Palestinian who was resident in Dhaka: "Our biggest enemy is the ummah; I don't blame America."
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Perry Legacy
The Perry Legacy
(link above)
Over a hundred and fifty years ago, Commodore Perry turned a peaceful nation into a terrible force: there are lessons to be learned from the transformation of Japan. There are certain aspects of the west that should not be emulated.
Excerpt:
About Japan's change of government in the mid-90s, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had said (The Economist, Survey of Asia, October 30, 1994, p. 23): 'I do not see them becoming a fractious, contentious society like America, always debating and knocking each other down. That is not their culture. They want growth and they want to get on with life. They are not interested in ideology as such, or in the theory of good government. They just know a good government and want a good government. Americans believe that out of contention, out of the clash of different ideas and ideals, you get good government. That view is not shared in Asia."
(link above)
Over a hundred and fifty years ago, Commodore Perry turned a peaceful nation into a terrible force: there are lessons to be learned from the transformation of Japan. There are certain aspects of the west that should not be emulated.
Excerpt:
About Japan's change of government in the mid-90s, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had said (The Economist, Survey of Asia, October 30, 1994, p. 23): 'I do not see them becoming a fractious, contentious society like America, always debating and knocking each other down. That is not their culture. They want growth and they want to get on with life. They are not interested in ideology as such, or in the theory of good government. They just know a good government and want a good government. Americans believe that out of contention, out of the clash of different ideas and ideals, you get good government. That view is not shared in Asia."
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Reflections on Democracy and Violence
Reflections on Democracy and Violence
http://unlikelystories.org/sayeed0207.shtml
The second section of this article establishes a correlation, witnessed by evidence and the testimony of S. E. Finer and Stanley J. Tambiah, between democracy and violence, a correlation that is strengthened in the third section by John Keane and Robin Blackburn's observation that civil society tends towards violence; but correlation is not causation, and section three is dedicated to establishing a causal link between the Forum-type polity and violence.
http://unlikelystories.org/sayeed0207.shtml
The second section of this article establishes a correlation, witnessed by evidence and the testimony of S. E. Finer and Stanley J. Tambiah, between democracy and violence, a correlation that is strengthened in the third section by John Keane and Robin Blackburn's observation that civil society tends towards violence; but correlation is not causation, and section three is dedicated to establishing a causal link between the Forum-type polity and violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
