A propagandist-in-chief's war on intellectual imperialism and pursuit of a resistance episteme

Posts Tagged: intellectual imperialism

Text

I am trying to refrain from using any expletives in my reaction to this petition on Syria signed by comprador intellectuals, colonized Arabs, and of course intellectuals of the western liberal, saviour-complex ilk. So instead, I am simply going to confine myself to my favourite Liz Lemmon, from 30 Rock, line—“I want to go to there”. 
Indeed, I want to go to this revolutionary utopia where despite those rebel groups which represent “the negation of the Other politically, socially and culturally”, the “revolution for freedom and dignity remains steadfast,” where there remains a huge space space occupied by “people and organizations on the ground that still uphold the ideals for a free and democratic Syria.” And it is these guys who are calling the shots and resisting, not the takfiri terrorists of al-Nusra. Nuh uh.
It is a place where there is a revolution that “is connected to the Palestinians’ struggle for freedom, dignity and equality.” More than this, it is “an extension of the Zapatista revolt in Mexico, the landless movement in Brazil, the European and North American revolts against neoliberal exploitation.” Wow. 
It is an anti-imperialist revolution which rejects the intervention of “states that never supported democracy or independence, especially the US and their Gulf allies”, who have “tried to crush and subvert the uprising, while selling illusions and deceptive lies.” See, this revolutionary utopia rejects that intervention although it is calling on “global civil society” i.e. Western NGOs, to do precisely that. You see, this revolution has no support in mainstream corporate or Arab media or among the completely brainwashed western and Arab publics. Its a poor little revolution that has been “left alone” by the “regional and world powers.” 
I really want to go to there, to that Marxist revolutionary utopia where everyone wears a Kuffieh and a Che Guevara t-shirt and looks like Will Smith; a place where those who delight in posing for the cameras while barbecuing the heads of captured helicopter pilots are but anomaly of an otherwise progressive, popular revolution which will usher in freedom, love, peace and harmony if only it would get more western support. 

Full petition here 

div>
Text

Earlier this week, I used the following example in my Research Methodology class to illustrate to my students 3 points: (1) how the White Man supposedly represents neutrality and scientific objectivity (2) that deferring to “international law” is nothing more than agreement reality or social reality, which white, western male elites have agreed upon as constituting “reality” and hence, is not a sufficient basis for conclusive empirical evidence (3) how crude Orientalism and racism continue to thrive among western liberals.

Here is the example: an established European journalist who writes for a respected mainstream British newspaper once interviewed me about the STL’s (Special Tribunal for Lebanon) indictment of Hizbullah in the Hariri assassination case. I explained why I believed it was a kangaroo court and how some of the flimsy evidence (such as the telephone records) could have been tampered with. The journalist dismissed my words as though I were a typical Arab conspiracy theorist. So I challenged him further “why not?” I asked, “is it that inconceivable that the legal experts working for the UN tribunal would manufacture evidence?” “Yes” he answered assuredly, “they just wouldn’t do that”. I replied “answer me honestly, would you have you that same certainty and answered the same way if the experts and organization in question were Arab, Muslim, or black”? “No, I wouldn’t” he answered.

div>
Text

The problem with liberal imperialism is that it assumes we all subscribe to its supposedly universal concept of power conceived as compelling others to do what they otherwise wouldn’t do, whether by means of reward or punishment; in other words, power defined as control and domination. But the oppressed know that real power lies in resisting that domination and refusing to submit to it. Power for 

the oppressed is synonymous with freedom and the ability to act and have mastery over oneself, rather than over others. This explains why imperialists always misconstrue all political action on the part of the oppressed as a pursuit of the liberal conception of power —“regimes” clinging on to “power”, the Lebanese Shiites/Hizbullah making a “power grab” etc. Western liberal political scientists continue to analyse politics through their Euro-American lens and in so doing, fail to grasp political reality. They don’t understand that the more we resist imperialist designs and the more we deny them their “power” over us, the more empowered we are. Our sacrifices and suffering are nothing but affirmations of our power over the Empire. And it is precisely this sense of empowerment that sustains the oppressed’s will to keep resisting despite all the costs. For the oppressed, submission is dis-empowerment even if submission is rewarded with political office. Neither the imperialists nor the colonized seem to grasp this.

div>
Text

Funny how the Arab public was never referred to as such in western discourse but as the “Arab street”, with all the negative connotations of irrationality and violence such a term carries. Funnier still that the term “Syrian street” is not used to refer to the supporters of the sectarian warlords, executioners and terrorists, who constitute far less than a majority of the population, but the much more civilized and rational concept of “the Syrian people” and the Western, human rights-friendly notion of “Syrian activists”. So this is the criterion: when an Arab public peacefully protest against the US or its stooges, or launch an intifada against the Zionist regime, they are a street. When they kill fellow Arabs, and in so doing serve Israeli and US interests, they are a people. Got it?

div>
Text

 They label non-submissive governments  as “authoritarian” “regimes” or “dictatorships” but none of these political systems are totalitarian in the same way that liberalism is, particularly its American variant. None of these systems demand inner [cognitive and emotional] conformity from their subjects, only outward conformity in their political behaviour. For what could be more totalitarian than a system which also wants to control our “hearts and minds”? A system which seeks to intellectually and psychologically structure our choices in every aspect of our lives; A system which refuses to acknowledge that it is an ideology at all but pronounces itself a meta-ideology or zero-point from where other ideologies are judged to be left or right, religious or secular, democratic or undemocratic; A system which doesn’t even require overt modes of control or censorship to dominate its subjects because it shapes rationality with its subjects’ consent; A system which is so hegemonic, so naturalized that it passes itself off as common sense and hence distorts our perception of reality itself; a system which is so totalitarian and universalized that even those who resist its more violent manifestations remain blind to the fact that their resistance remains confined within its parameters; What system is anywhere near as totalitarian as liberalism? 

div>

Fourth of July Lies ~ June Terpstra in truthaholics


An illuminating article on the new and far more insidious cognitive imperialism by resisting scholar, June Terpstra:

The main focus of new resistance movements must be that of human cognition. The people of the USA, Europe and Israel do not see themselves as the oppressors, the occupiers, the killers and the torturers. They have convinced themselves of their superiority in all things. The moral education system they have deconstructed forms a cognitive structure which views greed and aggression for “democracy” as the norm. My assertions here will make most Americans, Europeans, and Israeli’s uncomfortable, because most do not “feel” like the “bad guys” in fact, they think they are the “good guys”. Whereas in the past cultural imperialism and white supremacy was asserted through blatantly racist acts and colonial political policies using liberal Enlightenment ideas about the “equality of man” there is now a weeding out of notions of national superiority based on so called democratic economic standards that are even more complex and more firmly entrenched than old style European imperialism. The moral import of this dominant cultural notion of the human person is clear. Children in the USA, Europe and Israel across race, gender and class learn concepts about love, equality, and the Golden Rule while simultaneously being trained in the importance of killing and torturing so called terrorists and “liberating” countries lead by so called dictators in the name of “national security”. Equality now is reserved for those members of the USA, Israel and Europe who obey their masters and those who question this set of lies experience isolation and accusations of being unpatriotic and “domestic terrorists”.


Full article here

div>
Text

So Nadim Houry, Human Rights Watch’s deputy director of its Middle East and North Africa division, “condemns” the rebel massacre of al-Ikhbariya news staff here. However, the HRW representative refrained from calling it “horrible” or any other term that would express his moral outrage, as such terminology is strictly reserved for anti-imperialists and anti-Zionists like myself, as this example illustrates. And where are all those western liberals who were morally horrified by my “disgusting” , “sick” , “appalling” piece, now? I guess the massacre of government affiliated television staff isn’t a compelling enough narrative for assuaging their white liberal consciences.   

div>
Text

One of imperialism’s most widely used tactics today is to ridicule, infantilize, and dismiss charges of imperialism as being so reductionist, oversimplistic, doctrinaire, passé, or conspiratorial, that we shy away from using such terms in our political discourse. For what could be more intellectually imperializing than to relegate what are esssentially social scientific concepts like colonialism, imperialism and class struggle to the realm of ideology, values and norms? By de-scientizing concepts that are no less measurable than “democracy”, “human rights” and “economic development”, Empire de-normalizes this discourse and disarms us of our intellectual armour. And that is how minds are colonized and information wars won.

div>
Text

The prominent blogger, Qifa Nabki, asked me and some of my friends to join a debate on Syria on his blog (see his post here). Our interlocutors include both liberal interventionist Americans and Syrians as well as an Israeli. Forget the Israeli for a moment, here’s why I reject debate or dialogue in such contexts: I refuse to be part of a debate on my region, my nation (yes I consider myself a Greater Syrian) with Americans who have no RIGHT to that conversation in the first place. Their inclusion, in and of itself, is a license for US intervention; a tacit acknowledgement of the US’ right to pursue its interests on our lands. When the terms of the debate shift from what should BE done about Syria—uttered in the passive narrative voice, with all the liberal imperialist undertones such a question carries—to what do Syrians and their Arab brethren think THEY should do to secure internal peace and stability in Syria on the one hand, and national sovereignty on the other, then you can count me in. Until then, no I don’t believe in dialogue unless we (non-Zionist) Arabs are the ones who define the terms of that dialogue.

div>
Text

If I read one more article entitled “what do we do about Syria?” like this Foreign Policy series ”What the Hell do we do About Syria?”, I don’t know what I will do. I mean it was less offensive in the past when they used the passive narrative voice “what TO DO about Syria”? But this haughty imperial tone spoken in the first person is so much more offensive.

What do WE do about you, that is the question. What do we do about the traitors in our midst is another prospective title. But YOU don’t get to do anything. It’s our region, not yours. 

And then look at the contributors to this Foreign Policy series, a former US army commander, and some text- book case House Arabs. How dare they call themselves “journalists”, “scholars” and “research fellows”, when they readily accuse the regime of the Houla massacre and when they cite the 13 000 killed statistic as though either of these were an established fact. 

I know that neither I nor any of my colleagues on this side of the divide would dare make such brash claims about “knowing” who committed the Houla massacre or how many civilians the opposition killed.

Where are the standards for scientific research and analysis? Where is the empirical evidence? At the BBC? Or the SOHR? or with the eye-witnesses selected by opposition-affiliated fixers and activists?

Would they count statistics from SANA as evidence? Would they count testimonies selected by the government—which is a party to the civil war and hence, a side just like the opposition is—into account? We don’t even dare count these as evidence. 

This is an outrage to academia, to journalistic integrity and to every western standard of objectivity and balance I have internalized since I was a child. 
Time to deschool ourselves from this tyranny of “balance” and “credibility”, this tyrannical consensus reality they have manufactured, this awe we have for their institutional “prestige”. They are all liars. Simple. 

Time to set our own standards of what counts as knowledge and reality.

div>

"When a political issue gives you cognitive dissonance or you simply don’t know where you stand on it, just ask yourself: what would Obama/Netanyahu/Sarkozy/King Abdallah say? And then take the opposite stand. Easy."

-

div>

"In countries whose leaderships are not beholden to imperialism, the term “activists” has become as dirty a word as “revolutionaries” , “rebels” and “resistance”. This is the latest stage of Empire’s information war; the latest form of intellectual imperialism: usurping and laying claim to terms once exclusively identified with the counter-hegemonists. We need to fast reappropriate our discourse because without our words, our struggle is stripped of meaning."

-

div>

"A Facebook friend of mine made this excellent observation: “We’ve been so thoroughly brainwashed that it really is like a mental illness”. It got me thinking how the psychiatry-Big Pharma-government complex’s insistence on classifying most of us as mentally “ill” and on labeling almost every human condition as either a neurosis (irrational thinking) or psychosis (loss of contact with reality) is really just a very profitable diversion from the much more fundamental and widespread loss of reason and sense of reality that has afflicted almost everyone who is subjected to mainstream media. If we are to employ standard psychiatric definitions, then the average media consumer’s belief in a distorted or fabricated reality coupled with his inability to reason for himself or make rational judgments grounded in objectivity, can only be described as insanity of the most elemental kind."

-

div>
Text

Nothing entertains me more than reading the news wires after the weekly Friday anti-regime demonstrations in Syria.  A small sample:

AP, Friday, April 13: “The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an activist group, estimated that tens of thousands of protesters calling for Assad’s ouster marched in cities and towns across Syria.”

AFP, Friday, April 27: “Tens of thousands of people protested today in various areas of the country,” Rami Abdel Rahman, head of the Britain-based group, told AFP.”

AFP, Friday, April 6: “Tens of thousands of Syrian protesters took to the streets on Friday under fire from regime forces…. activists said.

AP, Friday April 27: “Tens of thousands of people poured into the streets across Syria for weekly anti-regime marches after Muslim noon prayers Friday. Amateur video from the central city of Homs… showed rows of men lining up in a main street, holding each other by the shoulders as they sang and danced.”

These figures wouldn’t be so important were the Syrian opposition not considered by mainstream Western and Arab media as synonymous with “the Syrian people” as a whole. To make this assumption, or rather, this ardent desire, correspond to its own politically constructed reality, the corporate media has been reporting protests “tens of thousands” strong since the very beginning of the uprising back in March 2011. However, in a grudging deference to the massive numbers who have demonstrated in support of Assad (disingenuously described in the mere “thousands”), and a consequent awareness of how deeply contested the issue of Assad’s popular legitimacy has become, the media is now compelled to attribute such numbers to “expert” authority. In this specific case, that authority is none other than head of the SOHR, Rami Abdulrahman, an alias for Osama Ali Suleiman, a shop-owner based in Coventry England, who works from his living room. As reported by Reuters here

“With only a few hours sleep, a phone glued to his ear and another two ringing, the fast-talking director of arguably Syria’s most high-profile human rights group is a very busy man…. the talk of gunfire and death incongruous with his two bedroom terraced home in Coventry, from where he runs the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.When he isn’t fielding calls from international media, Abdulrahman is a few minutes down the road at his clothes shop, which he runs with his wife. Cited by virtually every major news outlet since an uprising against the iron rule of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad began in March, the observatory has been a key source of news on the events in Syria.Surrounded by the trappings of family life — a glitter-spangled card made by his young daughter, a monkey doll with “Best Dad” on its belly — Abdulrahman sits with a laptop and phones and pieces together accounts of conflict and rights abuses before uploading news to the internet.”

Of further interest is the fact that a rival SOHR group, Syriahr.org, claimed in an open letter earlier this year that Rami/Osama took over the original SOHR website and essentially reduced it to a one man show. In effect, both AP’s and AFP’s assertions that the April protests numbered in the tens of thousands is based on the report of one man who dishes out figures from his Coventry living room.

Of course, as shown above, there are instances when news agencies diversify their sources and refer to “activists” who confirm this number for them, or alternatively, they employ other media sources such as Youtube videos uploaded by citizen-journalists/activists. These have become the new “expert authorities” whose testimonies are translated as verifiable fact, in other words, news.

And the images they show of “rows of men lining up in a main street, holding each other by the shoulders as they sang and danced” translates itself into empirical evidence of tens of thousands of protesters demonstrating for their rights across Syria.

The mainstream media’s audacious and liberal use of factoids aside, what truly boggles the mind, is how the ordinarily discerning Arab public has become swayed by such slipshod, unsophisticated information warfare. The threshold for a story’s believability has dropped to an all-time low (or to borrow one FB user’s pun, “al Jazeero”) whereby flimsy evidence has now succeeded in bypassing the mind’s critical faculty, otherwise known as a state of hypnosis. But then again that has always been the aim of Empire’s information war: to mass-hypnotize the collective Arab consciousness into submission.  In a 2008 speech, Seyyid Hassan Nasrallah alluded to the “huge media capacities at the level of the Western world and the Arab world whose media is regrettably penetrated by the Americans and the Zionists in an unprecedented way,” and went on to declare that “If they wipe out this awareness, they reach a point where they make us surrender and give up.”

If this same media can do so with the crudest of means, then its job of expunging our awareness and intellectually colonizing our minds is made that much easier. 

div>

"Bell Hooks on the relationship between the western/ized academic and the subaltern subject, and how only the former is qualified to explain the suffering of the latter : “No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own. Re-writing you I write myself anew. I am still author, authority. I am still colonizer the speaking subject and you are now at the center of my talk."

-

div>