Quote of the Day: Chomsky on Resistance

Actually, during this entire crisis, I thought one of the most astute comments was a two-sentence comment by Marwan Muasher. He’s a former high Jordanian official who’s head of Middle East research for the Carnegie Endowment. He said, "There’s an operative principle in the Middle East." He said, "The principle is, as long as people are quiet and passive, we’ll do whatever we like." That’s a general principle of statesmanship that applies here, too. As long as people are quiet and passive, we’ll do whatever we like. Now, of course, if they stop being quiet and passive, we’ll have to adjust somehow. Maybe they’ll even throw us out, but we’ll try to hang on as much as we can. And that’s what we see going on in the Middle East. That’s what we saw going on in Latin America. It’s what we see right here.

- Professor Noam Chomsky, speaking to Amy Goodman at DemocracyNow on the Middle East revolutions earlier in 2011.

Why African Leaders Cannot be taken Seriously

Spread across the African continent there are tyrants, military dictators, and kleptomaniac authoritarians. Every odious and repulsive trait that can be imagined in the pantheon of incompetent and venal leadership has been exhibited in the post-colonial heads of state that represent the nations of the continent. Given human nature, (ie. tribalism, corruption, greed, sloth, and short-term thinking) I don't suspect there to be any change for the better soon or for that matter ever.

As an example, consider Libya's Col. Qaddafi's first and maybe last visit to the United Nations in New York, where the Guardian UK described him as, "fully [living] up to his reputation for eccentricity, bloody-mindedness and extreme verbiage."

He tore up a copy of the UN charter in front of startled delegates, accused the security council of being an al-Qaida like terrorist body, called for George Bush and Tony Blair to be put on trial for the Iraq war, demanded $7.7tn in compensation for the ravages of colonialism on Africa, and wondered whether swine flu was a biological weapon created in a military laboratory. At one point, he even demanded to know who was behind the killing of JFK. All in all, a pretty ordinary 100 minutes in the life of the colonel.

Then he gave praise to that magnanimous and generous Kenyan President, Barack Obama:

Having thus abused and alienated 99.99% of the world's top diplomats, he suddenly changed tack, heaping praise and devotion on the one man he appears to respect. "Now the black man doesn't have to sit in the back of the bus, the American people made him president and we are proud of that. We would be happy if Obama stayed president of America forever."

I'm sure Hugo Chavez, another miltary man in populace garbs, was taking points on how to make friends and alienate gringos.

Statism and its believers

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

- CS Lewis

Ahmadinejad- A Useful Idiot

The Power Behind Ahmadinejad's Disputed Win: Ayatullah Khamenei - Yahoo! News

Christopher Hitchens in his 14 June Slate article describes the type of characters who are Ahmadinejad's adherents

I went to the last major Ahmadinejad rally and got the whiff of what I imagine fascism to have been all about. Lots of splotchy boys who can't get a date are given guns and told they're special.

There certainly are attributes of fascism, which are clearly expressed in the convoluted theocracy that is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nationalism, belligerent foreign policy, ethnic and class superiority, and authoritarianism are readily identifiable traits. However, the lack of a corporate dominated core and the weakness of the punditry class to adequately define Islamo-fascism other than in the most vague of metaphysical terms leads me to dismiss the label and accept that the Mullahs and their supporters are just good-ole-thugs at heart flying a revolutionary flag of convenience. The Iranian theocracy in my opinion is no different than any other autocratic junta who has seized power through military means and mob assistance. It is hardly a surprise that Ahmadinejad, instead of being a shrewd and refined politician is merely a punch-drunk lackey of the mullahs parading around in proletarian garbs and espousing populist shibboleths to convince the masses that he's one of their own.

The Yahoo news article outlines that the real power in Iran has always been the clerics and their security apparatus. Before the votes were fully counted the country was already operating under seige mode. Internet connections and cell phone lines were cut, opponents arrested, stormtroopers were sent out to control major institutions, foreign and domestic press coverage was stifled or completly removed, and the supreme (with extra cheese) leader himself declared (twice) that their man had won even before the votes were all counted.

Ahmadinejad's post-election responses to CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour about the integrity of the voting process, the validity of the election results, and the safety of electorial opponents were little more than farcial drivel that could have been written by Saddam Hussein's former Information Minister. For example, he claims that Iran, "Is the most stable country in the world" and it is a country where "all are equal." I'm sure that is true, unless of course if you belong to any particular minority group or are a woman.

He states that citizens can vote for any candidate that they wish for. Brilliant, you can vote for any candidate that the Mullahs allow you to vote for and in the present case you will have the representatives that the Mullahs have dictated, in spite of the popular vote. In other words, "You're free to do as we tell you to do!"

"The situation is very good... everyone is friends."

"Iran is a political power" and will make "economic, scientific, and
cultural" gains in the years to come.

The real question in my mind is how much knowledge and involvement did he personally have in this sorid affair? Did he instigate the ballot rigging or was he only told he won with the blessings of the Mullahs? At what point did he know the Mullahs had his back covered?

Because They Panicked - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Because They Panicked - The Daily Dish By Andrew Sullivan

Shared via AddThis

Firstly, if I can digress with an introductory Thomas Jefferson quote: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

What authoritarian governments fear most is their loss in maintaining and perpetuating power. Fear, once it takes hold of an individual or a dictatorship in this case, is not easily assuaged. It tunnels deep into the primal brain and stimulates terrible imaginations, which inevitably cascade into real life horrors. The clumsy and authoritarian meanderings of the Mullahs have confirmed unequivocally that Iran is a rogue nation with little capacity for reason or goodwill (especially to its own citizenry).

Perhaps the biggest winner of this act of self-immolation in the public arena is Israel. Having hectored endlessly and hysterically this past decade over the unstable nature of the Mullahs, one can only cede the Likudist crowd a few points here. What this does to Obama's Mideast peace plans and regional stability are unknowns.

Unfortunately Ken Pollock and the rest of the so-called establishment Middle East experts have already been asked what they think. The average 3-year old would at least give a more honest answer; that being they don't know, but these partisans exist only to dissemble and divulge disinformation.

The reason for dictatorships...

"One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship."
-1984, George Orwell

Therein lies the gist of all so-called political revolutions. Nary one has occurred that didn't descend into a state of cronyism, criminality, and towards their end a persistent and extreme proclivity towards incompetence. Of course for the casual observer, one would say, "That's why it's called a revolution." You simply replace the current existing strata or ruling class with whatever group that happens to toil on the periphery of power. History also tells another story in which sooner or later the new organs of power will become diseased and the rot pervasive. Its all happened before and will happen again. Benjamin Franklin said this about the American revolution and the newly adopted constitution in 1787:

Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Therefore with western eyes it comes as no surprise when the Chinese roll tanks into Tiananmen Square to butcher students, when Burmese Generals slaughter peasants and Buddhist monks and hold kangaroo courts against opponents, or as today has it, the Mullahs of Iran so fearful of transcendent change they dismiss the presidential elections as merely an academic exercise in public opinion management.

It's very simple to loath the "mad-Mullahs" and other religious-fanatics during these times. Theologically ordained gangsters, who issue fatwas declaring death to authors who fictionalize their precious religious mythology, permit rape and murder of foreign journalists who question their brutality, and execute children, can generally be described at their best as being detestable. On the economic front 82% of Iran's exports reside in oil and gas which flow East to China (another dictatorship) and Japan; inflation is listed at 25% per annum; and the state subsides gas, electricity, and a variety of consumer products. As all tyrants they claim divine right to authority, because they alone are the protectors of the sacred and defenders of society's integrity.

The early Romans, already well craft in Machiavellian arts, knew too well the religious undercurrents involved in subjugation, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Thus when Iranians who lead the coup against the Shah are asked if the revolution has been betrayed, they respond begrudgingly with a stern no. They know very well that this was how the revolution was always meant to be; a dictatorship of frauds masquerading in clerical robes. With the apparatus of the secret police under their control and the military as their eager partner in crime, the dictatorship was always guaranteed.

Unlike Western democracies where the forces of propaganda are far more sophisticated, Asian despots have no use in subtleties. Rather, heavy-baton weilding shock-troops and the public fear of torturous incarceration are their modus operandi. A compliant populace can also be obtained when economic growth, prosperity, and materialism rise and substitute for individual liberty and freedom. The Chinese, for example, have found a way to have a shiny happy dictatorship that the ruling class, the local communist chieftains, and the nouveau-rich masses can support. This however, is not the situation in Iran or for most dictatorships. There exists in each historical case a universal want for power. It is an unquenchable devotion that manifests itself in the relentless pursuit towards dominion over others and in a cruel desire to punish the populace for the slightest of inconveniences. This is not a practice that will lead to prosperity, but instead collapse, revolution, and cyclical historical repetition.