Imperialism And Resistance

Also see:

Fatima Bhutto: Pakistan’s Devastating Floods Are President Zardari’s Katrina. But I have to say, why do US progressive/leftists have such difficulty in finding authentic voices from Muslim countries? The only types they seem to interview are from the liberal elites, Fatima Bhutto is not even from that class, hers is a feudal massive landowning class, and like most others from both the liberal elite and feudal backgrounds, she has little or no direct connection with the vast working class of the country.

And here Amy Goodman repeats a similar Islamophobic refrain that has become popular amongst the western styled liberals who shudder at the thought that Islamic charities are actually doing what they do best:

And (the Washington Post) goes on to say, Islamic charities, including ones that are known fronts for banned militant groups, have begun distributing assistance in some areas…

The above is really a non-issue, what is an issue is how the US and other imperial powers will attempt to use disaster capitalism and the shock doctrine to try and capitalize on the floods to reshape Pakistan in their own image (they will fail, but they will try). Amy Goodman, instead of just picking a feudal to interview, might have instead tried to bring the voices of those who are directly involved in rescue efforts – such as representatives from the Islamic charities.

Again Amy Goodman:

We’re still on the line with Fatima Bhutto, the Pakistani poet, the niece of the assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

Come on, Fatima Bhutto is not just a “poet” – she is one of the heirs to one of the most powerful feudal political families of the country, These people may put up a face that western liberals might feel comfortable with, but they do not represent the vast majorities of Pakistan, they only represent their own tiny class.

Vineyard of the Saker has an important blog post on “My love-hate relationship with Marxists” – I identify with much of what he writes in this post, especially regarding how Marxists (and the North American left in general) relate (or rather do not relate, or understand) religion – especially Islam – and the role Islam plays in authentic liberation struggles amongst Muslims. I also agree with him on his assessment of the contemporary Latin American left movements, that do appear to be qualitatively different than their predecessors, in that they are not out to denigrate the people’s religious values, but are more interested in correcting the manipulation of religion by the oligarchies.

Many Marxists have also supported the “Gucci Revolution” in Iran only because they perceived the power of “the mullahs” (as they would put it) as being “reactionary” and “theocratic” (hence – very bad). Such Marxists have never read Ayatollah Khomenei, they know nothing of the progressive reforms introduced by the Islamic Revolution in Iran and they are oblivious to the fact that the leaders of the “Gucci Revolution” were representing the reactionary multi-millionaire and bourgeois classes of Tehran. For some mysterious reason, most Marxists when looking at Iran completely forgot about class interest and class warfare. That is what ideological blindness does to them. If religion is reactionary, then the mullahs are bad, and any movement which attempts to overthrow the Islamic Republic (which is what he “Gucci Revolution” was all about, of course) is worthy of support, even if it is CIA sponsored.

In all fairness, I have to admit that the new generation of Marxists is changing, at least in Latin America where leaders like Chavez or even Castro have considerably toned down their opposition to religion. I have some very real hope that the new “Bolivarian Socialism” or “Bolivarianism” will resolutely turn away from the deep errors of 20th century “classical” Marxism and, in the words of Hugo Chavez, “a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything”. Hopefully, this new type of socialism will, unlike Leninism and Trotskysm, value each individual life and never use terror. And hopefully this new type of socialism will accept and embrace the diversity of human spirituality and not designate any religion as the class enemy. Such a new socialism will be able to fully integrate the Marxist, Leninist and Trotskyst analysis and critique of the Capitalist system and ideology, but will reject their methods and prescriptions. After all, a “progressive” must – by definition – learn from past mistakes and yearn for a new, better, way.

Eva Golinger reports on US intervention in Venezuela and funding of a fraudulent press:

Documents reveal multimillion-dollar funding to journalists and media in Venezuela

US State Department documents declassified under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) evidence more than $4 million USD in funding to journalists and private media in Venezuela during the last three years. This funding is part of the more than $40 million USD international agencies are investing annually in anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela in an attempt to provoke regime change

The funding has been channeled directly by the State Department through three US agencies: Panamerican Development Foundation (PADF), Freedom House, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Press TV has had some interesting programs that are available on their YouTube channel – check out Shahram Amiri’s interview, and A short history of sanctions against Iran. Click here for Press TV’s YouTube channel

Although the KPFA web site states that the Hitchens’ event has been cancelled – the event poster was still up at Modern Times bookstore in San Francisco (see photo below).

Some background on the (current) location of Modern Times might also help provide some food for thought, and clarification:

… In 1980, we moved into a store in the Mission district, a predominantly Latina/o neighborhood… the Mission has truly become our home. We now see ourselves as playing a double role-as a progressive resource for the Bay Area, and as the community bookstore of the Mission.

For those not familiar with San Francisco – there are two main streets in the Mission District: Mission Street and Valencia Street – these two streets run parallel to each other, and while separated by a mere block – they (now, 2010) cater to very distinct populations. Mission Street mostly has stores and restaurants that cater to working class Latino/as (mostly Spanish speaking new immigrants) living in the area. Valencia Street, on the other hand, caters to White liberal hipsters, and yuppies – with its hip restaurants and cafes and bars – Modern Times euphemistically mentions:

“In 1980, we moved into a store in the Mission district, a predominantly Latina/o neighborhood. At that time, writers, artists, and queers from all over were moving to the Mission…”

Modern Times is located in this predominately White liberal area of the Mission District, on Valencia Street – it is *not* located within the Latino/a community of the district. Sure, one can say that the Mission District remains predominately Latino as a whole, but the fact is that the “(White) writers, artists, and queers (and other white liberals)” effectively drove large numbers of Latino/as out of this neighborhood. And Valencia now forms a clearly distinct White area – and has little in common with Mission Street just a block or so away (Latino/as do work on this street, but mostly as restaurant workers in the back (except at the taquerias) you won’t see too many working class Latino/a as hosts/waiters/waitresses in the front (at the hip restaurants) – those jobs are primarily reserved for Whites).

But leaving all this aside, giving Modern Times the benefit of the doubt, that it indeed does take its progressive and community values seriously, then we are left with the conclusion that the bookstore does not consider Muslims to be members of the community that it serves. Or, the bookstore is so entrenched in White liberalism that it sees no problem or contradiction when it chooses to put up a poster promoting an Islamophobe supporter of imperialism and wars on Muslims – and further expects Muslims to just swallow insults to our faith tradition (perhaps in the name “free speech.”)

Here is a quote of the Islamophobe Hitchens from the Hitchens Watch blog

At Stanford University in May 2006, Hitch really got into his stride during a 90-minute talk on why the West needs to take the threat of fundamentalist, militant Islam more seriously and why religion in general is bollocks. This is old news by now, but for dedicated Hitchwatchers, our hero’s words are timeless.

Talking about what he described as “a civil war within Islam,” he told the audience “You don’t have to be paranoid, racist or a bigot to take alarm.” But, of course, it definitely helps.

And by the time he got to Prophet Muhammad, Hitch was in full flow. “Of course, he’s not a prophet,” he said. “He’s an epileptic plagiarist.”

He then went on to describe the Quran — Islam’s holiest book — as being full of “evil fairly tales” that were “unimaginably recycled,” and for good measure, added, “It’s a boring plagiarism of the worst parts of Christianity and Judaism.”

The other day – while walking around – I came across the poster you can see below; it was prominently displayed at an independent supposedly “progressive” bookstore. I wondered briefly if the progressive-left institutions of the Bay Area had finally thrown away their facade, and were now getting ready to formally hook up with Obama (whom they supported during the election campaigning) to declare their support for wars and imperialism. But I did not think that is something they would do so openly, they do need some modicum of pretense so that they can continue getting funds from their supporters. So, then why would groups such as KPFA (the Berkeley based supposedly progressive Pacifica radio station) Modern Times, a San Francisco based supposedly progressive/left independent bookstore, consider sponsoring a person like Hitchens who is a supporter of US wars? Why would KPFA actually even consider such an event as a benefit for their station?

Well first, I should point out that the event, according to the KPFA web site, has been cancelled. Having said that, clearly posters were made, and there was a fair bit of publicity done before the cancellation. And clearly the progressive-left groups must have supported the event to have their names listed on the posters…

So whats up here? What is it about Hitchens that he would even be considered a member of the progressive-left? I would suggest that the reason is that Hitchens is no ordinary supporter of wars and imperialism – he is an atheist, anti-religion, and specifically in our historical context, an Islamophobe. This is what the Islamophobic left find appealing in Hitchens, and allows them, even if momentarily, to put aside their disagreements with him on war/imperialism – so that they can get a dose of religion, and specifically Islam bashing.

I should note that the bookstores who initially were supportive / sponsoring this event see no problem in carrying garbage trash by the likes of Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi – even though they would be in strong disagreement with them on most other issues – both being ultra-conservatives (Manji a pro-zionist, and Hirsi a member of the ultra conservative American Enterprise Institute). The equivalent might be for the San Francisco based Modern Times to carry books by African-Americans that disparage the culture and values of African Americans and/or Latinos, or East and South East Asians (the not Muslim kind). They won’t carry such books – but when it comes to Muslims all trash seems to be welcome.

Cindy Sheehan interview on Venezuelan TV, strong truthful words. Unlike many on the liberal-left of the US, who backed (and continue to back) the Obama campaign for a 3rd Bush Imperial Regime, Sheehan remained clear in her stand against US imperialism – while one may not agree with her on specific issues, at the very least she is willing to name the cancerous rot of imperialism for what it is… (Cindy’s words are translated by Eva Golinger).

See also a recent article by Chris Hedges on “Ralph Nader was right about Obama.” There are a number of such articles appearing, however, it remains to be seen if such sentiment will translate into actual political action, or, if the US liberal-left will, once again, ally themselves with the liberal wing of imperialism.

Part I

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Part II

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

By now, the standard claims about Iran’s “stolen election” have been repeated so many times by the establishment Western media, as well as by those on the left who took the bait, that almost everybody is hooked on it and unable to wiggle free. Undoubtedly, many foreign activists sincerely believe that they are supporting democracy inside Iran, and large numbers of Iranian dissidents truly are struggling for a more open and decent society and political order. But if Iran’s 2009 official election result is valid, and if there is strong majority support among Iran’s citizens for the structure and general character of its Islamic Republic, then these foreign activists, including the collection of Nobel laureates gathered around Wiesel, and those on the left who like to invoke “solidarity with the anti-Ahmadinejad movement,” clearly are not aligned with majority opinion inside Iran. We are not quite sure what to call this toxic mix of opposing the majority will of a foreign country’s citizens and doing so in the name of “democracy,” while feeding into the regime-change program of the United States and Israel. But strong currents of Orientalism as well as imperialism are clearly running through it.

read more here

Usually I think it is a waste of time to cover any elections that is taking place under imperial occupation, even if such elections have popular participation, the resulting government will remain under the tutelage of the US, and will ultimately fail to implement anything meaningful for the occupied population. The US then uses such failure to bring forth candidates who promise their White House masters to move the occupied nation even deeper into the imperial abyss.

With regards to Iraq, the issue is far more complex than what some liberal and reactionary liberals are making things out to be, for them the banning of the Ba’athists is a sidelining of “secular Sunni and Shias” – perhaps this is so… however, this is also a very simplistic analyses, and does not take the nature of the Ba’ath party into consideration. It has become fashionable amongst western liberals to paint a picture that the Ba’ath party was just a big (mostly “Sunni”) membership club, that one had to join in order to get a job etc. Well the fact is that the vast majority of Shia’s and Sunnis were not Ba’ath party members, and the overwhelming majority of Shi’as would have never been allowed to join the Ba’athists, and would never ever have even applied for such membership. There was, and there is a class issue that is conveniently ignored, that much of this “secular Sunni” and a handful of “secular Shia” belonged to, and continue to belong to the upper liberal elite classes of Iraq. The war that the Ba’ath party waged against the vast majority of the people of Iraq was not merely sectarian, nor just a question of Saddam Hussein’s political and physical survival, rather it was a systemic attempt to eradicate cherished Islamic values. Islamic values cherished by the vast majority of Iraqis who lived in abject poverty, and who were considered by the Ba’aathists to be ignorant and superstitious and illiterate on account of their imaan.

US imperialism is not going to protect the Iraqis, and as the video below correctly points out, it is the US that wants a return of the Ba’athists (who will pledge an even greater level of allegiance to the occupiers) stoke an anti-Iran nationalism, that would benefit the Americans to further expand their empire. All the while making sure that no form of popular resistance takes root in Iraq. BUT “They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; and the best of planners is Allah” (Qur’an 8:30)

The word Ayatullah has become a pejorative descriptive word amongst the neo-con imperialist types, and some of their North American reactionary liberal allies. The neo-con attitude towards Islamic values and institutions is well documented and understood, the reactionary liberals create a slightly more complicated situation because of their attempt to keep up a veneer of respectability in their attacks on Islamic leadership. However, often the reactionary liberals are very clear about their attitudes, and like their neo-con compatriots, they too couch their attacks in terms of “freedom.”

A more obvious example of reactionary liberalism is that of, one, Asa’d Abu Khalil

From his blog:

Monday, December 07, 2009
Alcohol is now banned in Basrah
The people of Iraq has a long history of enjoying food and alcohol. Now, new rules apply. In the Ayatullah republic, the governorate of Basrah has banned alcohol. But to be fair: drinking water is still permitted. And for that, Kanan Makiya said: thank you, Mr. Bush.
Posted by As’ad at 7:28 AM

Sunday, December 06, 2009
This is the Ayatullah republic that the US constructed in Iraq
“Authorities have ordered the closure of all Baghdad nightclubs and dozens of shops selling alcohol, concerned the venues were undermining “public morals,” the city’s governor said on Sunday.”
Posted by As’ad at 9:18 AM

I don’t think I need to point out the obvious nonsense of the above statements, there is a history of how alcohol and drugs have been used by the imperialists to subdue populations that they are attempting to conquer, or keep under their control. If indeed Iraq does implement any Islam based laws, then that is NOT because the imperial US has created something, rather it is a result of the resistance of the people of Iraq.

Below is a recent Press TV documentary explaining the concept of Grand Ayatullah, and is a must viewing for those actually interested in understanding this remarkable scholarly tradition of Shi’a Islam.

I can understand the Pakistani liberal-elite being either hoodwinked, or enthusiastically supporting native informants such as Perez Hoodbhoy, he is one of them, after all… But what does bother me (although less now than before) is that people like Hoodbhoy are celebrated as “progressives” and “leftists” by North American liberal-left medias such as Z Net that publishes his articles almost on a monthly basis (9 in the year 2009, 8 or 9 in 2008, and so forth…). Part of the problem is the rampant Islamophobia amongst liberal-leftists and, as a result, like their neo-con counterparts, they promote native informants who speak on behalf of their preferred ideology: secularism. Another part of the problem is that, also like their neo-con counterparts, the liberal-left is forever in search of that “good Muslim” who will appeal to their sensibilities, self-determination be damned. Such an attitude on part of the liberal-left media has left “progressives” in North America confused, and paralyzed – in effect playing right into the hands of the neo-conists, and liberal imperialists such as Obama and Obamaists.

In Hoodbhoy’s monochrome vision there are no shades of gray, his worldview is Manichean: You are with us, or you are with the terrorists. Opponents can only be driven by ‘evil’: there are no innocents. Violence is its own explanation, there is rarely a cause. To suggest one is to be an ‘apologist for extremism’. This is no leftist talking, this is Sharon-speak.

“If people don’t respect the sanctity of Ashura, they will not respect the sanctity of anything”

The above sentence is perhaps the most important quote that I’ve heard from Iranians speaking out against the US backed green movement actions. Muslims don’t live in a self-created delusion that there is no such thing as the sacred – Islam calls us to live in a sense of complete awareness of Creation – from the tiny ant, a grain of sand, to the massive cosmos. And we also have our traditions and rituals – these too are sacred: Salaat, Hajj, the observances of Ashura, amongst others. Significant sections of the North American/European reactionary right and liberal-left regard sacred traditions as not only mere “superstitions” but believe that insulting and denigrating these traditions is an acceptable form of “free speech.” This is then imitated by some sections of the alliance of secularist-monarchist-leftist-liberal in Iran (aka green movement). Of-course, the harm that they do is much more to themselves than to Islam, or even to Muslims, but as Muslims, and as Shi’a Muslims, it is also our responsibility to disassociate ourselves from such individuals, and such movements. This vow of disassociation is the meaning of lanatullah.

WARNING: The last section of the video contains graphic insulting language against Islam beginning 8:31.