From: Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Date: Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Subject: Teach me!
To: Pervez Hoodbhoy
Cc: [ ]
Dear
PH: The following is my [latest] work which has [once again]
challenged the world view of which you are a part. Your contribution
to that world view is captured in the following paragraph in item-1:
Why
do pious people continually make “World War IV”
out to be about Islam and Muslims? They either see it as being a war
on Islam and apologetically argue that Islam is benign and that “The
detractors of Islam fail to see all this” as Ramzy Baroud
does in 'Muslims
Must Not Pay Price for Europe’s Identity Crisis';
or see it as there being something inherently wrong with an
antediluvian Islam which needs to be overhauled to bring it in line
with modernity as Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis et. al. do in their
doctrinal craftsmanship such as 'Crisis of Islam – Holy War and
Unholy Terror' and in propagandist statements like it's “Not
a Clash of Civilizations, It's a Clash between the Civilized World
and Barbarians”; or see it as something wrong with the
Muslims who need a reformation from their Dark Age as Pakistani
native informant par excellence, Pervez Hoodbhoy does in his
atheistic zealotry to reform the Muslim mind. In all cases, they
calculatingly distract attention from the blatant fact of the matter
that hectoring hegemons are engaging in demonization and false-flag
operations to “goosestep the Herrenvolk across
international frontiers” in their age old quest for
Lebensraum, euphemistically called Global Governance.
And
that contribution of yours is validated, as well as shown in its
proper relative bit position in reference
cited in item-2.
Let
me know where I might be wrong. I'd like to be wrong - because
otherwise the conclusion is rather bleak for you despite your backing
from empire and your untouchability at this time.
You
know you are their shill playing noora-kushti. I know it. Looking in
the mirror you can't escape it. Since this is unsettling for me for
someone of your stature, even if not for you, I hope I have only
mis-perceived. Since you and your published detractors have carved
out the WWF forum to stage their own main-event, I have no venue to
offer my views publicly - which suits you just fine apparently. I'd
say that's intellectual cowardice, hiding behind the skirt of empire
which has entirely book-ended the discourse space including its
dissent. Just like Chomsky had himself put it, and which he
subsequently himself employed to his own advantage, just as you are
doing:
'This
"debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle
of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party
Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed -- or else. What you
actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In
societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force,
the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is
encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy.
The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief;
the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and
freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party
Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air
we breathe.'
and
'Democratic
societies use a different method: they don't articulate the party
line. That's a mistake. What they do is presuppose it, then encourage
vigorous debate within the framework of the party line. This serves
two purposes. For one thing it gives the impression of a free and
open society because, after all, we have lively debate. It also
instills a propaganda line that becomes something you presuppose,
like the air you breathe.'
and
'The
smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit
the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate
within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident
views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going
on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being
reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.'
You
are, after all, a Chomsky student, or confrere. You claim the mantle
of an intellectual. Yet you shy away from debate outside the "debate"
spectrum. Don't you think you are greater than that? Be a teacher
Pervez - teach me. As Socrates may perhaps have asked of his own
teacher, just as he asked of the people about to administer him the
Hemlock:
'Agree
with me if I seem to you to speak the truth; or, if not, withstand me
might and main that I may not deceive you as well as myself in my
desire, and like the bee leave my sting in you before I die. And now
let us proceed.'
And
I cc a few who apparently hold you in very high esteem. They share
with you one thing – their silence on modernity.
Best
Regards,
Zahir
Ebrahim
only
a plebe
Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
-
### -
Related:
Case
Studies in Social Engineering: Manufacturing Consent and Dissent –
The Master Social Science
Related:
Letter
to Editor: A surfeit of Pakistani geniuses or simply 'native
informants'? April 06, 2009
Source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/12/open-letter-hoodbhoy-native-informant.html
ALT Source Open Letter PDF:
https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/open-letter-to-pervez-hoodbhoy-why-do-you-hide-under-the-imperial-skirt-dec272009-zahir-ebrahim.pdf
ALT Source Letter to Hoodbhoy December 25, 2009 PDF:
https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/Letter-to-Pervez-Hoodbhoy-The-Confessions-of-a-Groveling-Pakistani-Native-Orientalist-dec252009-zahir-ebrahim.pdf
Links fixed February 25, 2018
Open
letter to Pervez Hoodbhoy – Why do you hide under the imperial
skirt? By Zahir Ebrahim