Matthew writes yet another brilliant piece – this time explaining somewhat the hysterical rants of our dear Melanie Phillips – she is a truly peculiar institution. Moreover, in my opinion, she is the proof that the Forces that Be has/have a very dark sense of humour. She is simply one of those people that I cannot despise (even though many love to hate her); rather, I pity her warped view of the world and how she is in a state of bondage to the Zionist, Neoconservative and Fundamentalist Right demographic.
My favourite part of this piece is when he writes the following:
“A number of years ago when I paid more attention to the ravings found on the American blogosphere than I do now, I coined the term “truthspace”, referring to a kind of reality bubble where speakers and writers come out with claims that are demonstrably false, but this does not matter to their audience with whom they are ideologically united and they agree on the ‘necessity’ of these claims being accepted as truth, even if they are not.”
I wonder if hermeneutical arguments do indeed apply to her – is she merely a product of someone else’s ideology or is there something deeper, perhaps more pathological (in a philosophical sense) there?
You be the judge – but just in case you’d rather not I’d definitely recommend that you read Matthew’s post.
Goodness! Great job, today, dear American friends.
Fox has apparently called it in Obama’s favour tonight; looking at the stream from the Romney HQ in Boston, it is just so, so white. Funny that, eh…
I was so worried those 2012 end-of-the-world predictions were going to come true.
As a friend just wrote to me, “…Russia has probably turned the missiles back off.” – I’m inclined to not view this as merely rhetoric.
I thought today that I might savour the sky (even though I didn’t get out of the house at all) – I was so worried that we were on the precipice of having nuclear clouds lining our horizons had a certain crazy Republican won. I thought we might have been on our modern brink of the Cuban Missile Crisis – I’m sure that even people in the Middle East can finally breathe with some relief. The BBC has just called it in Obama’s favour (and he apparently did it without Florida or Virginia) – if that’s true – then it is nothing short of Grace. The Senate looks as if it has been retained by the Democrats too.
Moreover, he’s the only other President aside from FDR to win despite the economy being in such appalling shape .
Now, I’m not a fan of Obama – far from it (I wish Nader had run, really) however I cannot but share my elation with you, dear friends, because, to be honest, when a fanatical jingoist stands the chance of winning, it really sends shivers across the whole world, even in the West.
As I type, the BBC just called Nevada for Obama – a safe state for him, despite the unemployment. Let’s hope Obama get’s to 300 – it appears he may not have won the popular vote – but in 2000 I think Fox calling it for Bush is what probably determined the event, if Michael Moore is to be believed. Even so, perhaps my estimation of the Founding Fathers has just risen. Maybe they did know what they were doing, at least a little, after all.
A good friend of mine, Siraj Datoo (Editor in Chief of The Student Journals – studentjournals.co.uk) was in September on BBC World Have Your Say, as part of an interesting discussion on the protests across the Muslim world and from the Muslim communities in the West.
It’s a great discussion and I found it very thought-provoking. Yes, I know it’s a little late for me to comment – but in a narcissistic aim to feed my ego, I might as well chime in on the discussion.
If you’d like my rant and comments on this programme (very badly composed as I sort of zoned out and typed furiously over the course of a few minutes), I’ll include my thoughts under the link. Siraj’s blog can be found here.
I very much enjoyed this programme. I liked the French fellow – he seemed to have interesting things to say, but alas, did seem to speak a little from the privileged perspective.
I enjoyed this platform particularly because most of the panelists were articulate, educated, peace-oriented (although that’s the de facto human condition if you strip away all those things the higher powers use to divide us) – thankfully no fringe-fanatics were interviewed, no Anjem Choudarys or fanatical, angry, bearded clerics in sight, thank God!). Though the BBC is now an arm of the British Government in many respects, I think that this programme was pretty balanced and nuanced. Only that they didn’t discuss the problem of modern Western imperialism in the Middle East and the ‘global south’ in general.
The American fellow is moronic, if you’ll excuse me, comparing the President of the US to say the Prophet Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha etc – absolute madness. Most Westerners don’t feel about their leaders what Muslims in general feel about the Prophet Muhammad – he is seen as the paragon of virtue, of love, of humanity – I imagine the same way Christians feel about Jesus. If you actually read the histories and biographies of his life, his track record is far better than that of say, Sarkozy or Obama.
His talk (that is, our American friend) of freedom of speech in the States being a result of the struggle for liberation from British imperialism is a bit rich; many of the protestors, as was said on the show, live in the third world. They are affected by imperialism to this day. It’s all fair and well that the ‘free’ man can criticise – only he doesn’t realise that in his hand he firmly grasps the whip the beat at the backs of the barbarians he is trying to civilise.
More importantly, they are subject to rampant, unrestrained imperialism on the part of the US, Britain, the ‘free world’.
Do you think their burning of US flags and effigies of Obama are as a result of their hatred of ‘freedom’? As Chomsky said, it’s not that they hate our freedoms, but it’s that we hate their freedoms. The US has for decades continued to prop up the most authoritarian, fanatical regimes across the Arab and Muslims world (and elsewhere) – which undermines daily the dignity and freedoms of the Muslims. We saw it with Gaddhafi, Mubarak, the House of Saud, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, the Bahraini monarchy (now a client state), the Israeli government that for decades has massacred the Palestinians and Lebanese without restraint.. the list goes on…not to mention that they currently occupy two countries now in the Middle East. Don’t even get me started on what they’re doing across Africa, the Far East, the South Pacific.
Mahesh was completely misguided – liberating the Kuwaitis was a benevolent act on the part of the US?!
So long as this mentality of crazy, right-wing (party fanatical Christian Right) jingoism continues in the world, the West will never understand why it is the Muslim world feels under attack when symbols of their identity – especially their religious identity (no doubt the Islamic identity is the most powerful one extant today, the staying power and message of the Prophet hasn’t waned – which says something about the universality of Islam I think) – is denigrated.
Yes, the film was used as an excuse for violence – madness. But the anger, resentment, feeling of threat on the part of the Muslim world is not something they imagined. The US and Western imperial agenda is still alive, these protestors live in so-called ‘postcolonial’ societies (can you sense the irony?!) whose progress toward dignity, individual freedom, is constantly hampered by either US funds or Saudi petrodollars to prop up and perpetuate the most barbaric conditions – degrading the dignity of those Muslims, Christians and Jews who happen to live in those failed states.
As a community – we feel the frustration (as many of us more privileged in the West travel ‘home’ often) of our brethren, just as much as we feel under attack in or actual homes in the West because of this ‘softer’ approach toward marginalising an Islamic way of life in so-called democracies. The Prophet, hijab, halal meat, male circumcision, the Islamic moral code (that’s the whole of the Shari’ah – not just the punitive stuff the Right likes to parade on Fox News) – all of this is being sidelined in favour of something more ‘civilised’. Funny, I don’t see the Kosher food or male circumcision in the state of Israel as being demonised by our press in the West. But they do indeed seem to care a little too much about it in, Germany and France – where Muslims are a significant minority (as well as Jews, incidentally).
It’s ironic, is it not, that their aim to liberate those poor, oppressed, Muslim women in the Islamic world, they have to ban the burqa in France?! That’s just a pretext for something far more pernicious, sinister. Islam is coming under attack from a very influential atheistic lobby and Religious Right; my concern, and perhaps it’s paranoia – but if they continue to inflict this kind of neoimperialism and liberal arrogance on the Arab, Muslim and Third-World, and the Muslims (and perhaps even others) keep protesting both here in the West, and there, feeding the paranoia of the Religious Right and the secularists, the mass deportations might begin sooner than we think.
The proper response to such cartoons varies depending on the context of the people who are protesting – but certainly it should be a peaceful one. Moreover, the privileged Muslims in the West at least should pool their funds together – we need better PR. Thought it’s unfair that we are put in this situation to have to defend ourselves (people are uneducated about the Islamic world, about Muslims) – we need films, books, media of our own to be accessible, highly promoted – to build an understanding of what Islam has to offer to society, and what its potential can be as part of the ‘Liberal’ world.
I do believe in the tenets of freedom of speech – and if someone wants to disrespect a particular religion or institution – I will defend his right to do so. Only, he doesn’t realise that he has shackled himself to the state-religion, which is far more threatening, serpentine, insidious, far more dangerous than religion proper could ever be to his freedoms.
But I fear that by the time he realises it, it will be too late. Ah, the arrogance of the West (when I speak of the West, I don’t of course include countries in the Eastern bloc, or say the more developed countries in Latin America – I have far more respect for them, and to an extent the mediterranean countries, and their governments than I do for say the Israeli, British, German, American, Canadian, French, Autralian total Hegemon).
I quote Noam Chomsky way too much, but when he was asked about the politics of so-called secularist humanists who promote freedom (Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, specifically) and use their platform to promote an “aggressive foreign policy”, Chomsky responded (here):
“I think they are religious fanatics. They happen to believe in the state-religion, which is much more dangerous than other religions, for the most part. So they…both of them, happen to be defenders of the state-religion, namely the religion that says that ‘we have to support the violence and atrocities of our own state, because it’s being done for all sorts of wonderful reasons…which is exactly what everyone says in every state…and that’s just another religion, like the religion that ‘markets know best’..it doesn’t happen to be a religion that you pray to…once a week. But it’s just another religion as is very destructive.”
Finally -the West needs a culture shift; for some reason Muslims are expected to put their Western, nationalist identity before their faith – something that Muslims, I believe, are resisting – this is something that ardent secularists cannot grasp. The idea of liberalism and living in a free society from the perspective of minority groups is somewhat different to that of the secular, caucasian, affluent Right-wing.
But the fact that this sort of hate speech and rampant disrespect for beliefs that people hold dear – is just as much a damning inditement to the failures of a ‘free’ system that is solely based on the state-institution and of Capital, that ironically claims its virtues to be that it creates a context for universal acceptance, of respect. That it in fact can take place, in the first place, is very, very, telling. And yes, in case you ask, I would just as much defend the rights of Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, etcto take offence if their religious figures and symbols came under such attack, and I would, if able, attend their protests also.
I’ve written too much, bedtime!
P.S By the way, I don’t despise atheists/secularists nor do I dislike Right-Wing Christians – but their political agenda is and are, well… just obscene. I think they’re the greatest threat to actual freedom – especially the freedom to choose your own identity, your allegiances, your priorities is this perpetuation of the free, secular myth. It hasn’t been able to take the place of religious beliefs, something it has aspired to do for the last century, fundamentally because it misunderstands the importance in impact of religion and religious beliefs of the lives of adherents. But then that’s another debate.
I was so glad to discover that the aforementioned film is still available on Al-Jazeera. I’d definitely recommend that you have a look if you have the time.
I have watched it at least a couple of times – I think it portrays a brutally honest look into the life of perhaps one of the most principled public figures alive today. For those of you who think that this will be a little dry – I assure you it isn’t (or so I think). It is both an honest look at what it’s like to lead his sort of life – an academic – though not always valued by the establishment stooges is nonetheless an incredibly prolific and insightful figure.
For those who don’t know him, Norman Finkelstein is an American academic, a political scientist more specifically, and a son of two Jewish Holocaust-survivors, who just happens to be one of the most vocal and articulate critics of the politics of the state of Israel and Zionism. Perhaps after the late Edward Said – he is probably the most sympathetic and fair critic of the subject – despite himself not being a Palestinian.
He has been embroiled in various academic discussions, most notably with perhaps the most, umm…let’s say ‘voracious’ popinjays of the Zionist Lobby, Felix Frankfurter Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, of Harvard University, whose book, The Case for Israel he labelled a “fraud”. BAD idea…
Though usually staunchly pragmatic, perhaps he was a little foolhardy and rushed into a conflict with the Professor during a live debate on Democracy Now! (with Amy Goodman) – a very interesting watch and someone has uploaded it to YouTube. He clearly won the debate. Hands down.
This, by my estimation, resulted in his being removed from his post DePaul University in Chicago (the rather curious reasons for which are discussed in the film), and a huge public outcry and campaign against his unfair dismissal, which was supported by some very high-profile personalities.
Incidentally, Professor Dershowitz is also featured in this documentary, so certainly I don’t think a case can be made that the film was one-sided.
I am really a fan of his – he embodies perhaps the most important of the characteristics of what it means to be human, that is, empathy, and hope. Moreover, watching so thoughtfully reflect on his life is quite a treat. Perhaps I sound rather like a sycophant?! You decide!
A brilliant edition of ‘The Stream’ speaking of the cartoons and the rage that followed it; is such a shame that more voices of moderation aren’t given this kind of exposure.
That said, I think the discourse lets-off too easily the greater power-play here – I read it as classical orientalism – a way of subduing the Eastern man because he is quick to murderous rage, necessitating condemnation from Western Governments and schooling in what it is to live in the ‘modern world’ (thank you President Clinton, you very wicked man).
Nouman Ali Khan was particularly excellent – speaking of the moral imperatives as opposed to the legislative ones which are important. And I think that that moral space should be recognised; as a person of ‘belief’, I wonder if it is a failing on the part of the faithful that this has been allowed to be perpetrated; our world today seems to be blinded by the notion of rights that extend even to the bigoted (which is fine in principle), the only problem being that we are so individualistic that we block out moral voices and moral instruction as soon as it interferes with our whims and desires – isn’t the point of morality (and I speak of universals here) that it should be able to shape or control our impulses for wickedness?
It’s an unpopular view to have, no-doubt, in today’s world. What do you think?
Great conversation on Al Jazeera’s The Stream yesterday: I was with Lisa Fletcher and Anushay Hossain in the studio — I love her blog Anushay’s Point — and Omid Safi, Nouman Ali Khan, and Michael Muhammad Knight joined in on Skype. Plus an excellent video comment from Hind Makki in Chicago, which led to a lively post-show discussion, starting at the 25.15 mark, on reclaiming the narrative from both ‘Islamist’ extremists and Islamophobic bigots.
It’s a good thing Nouman Ali Khan wasn’t in the studio, because I’d only have totally embarrassed him by leaping up to give him a huge hug. I really do have to figure out how to be cool on TV…
Like I say, hang around for the post-show segment — the silent majority is silent no longer!
I think that this is a fantastic interview – for the most part, Ahmadinejad was very clear, very forthright. Whatever you make of his politics (and I’m considerabely more ‘Leftist’ than he is), I must give him credit for being one of those few political leaders who speaks honestly, makes no apologies for his beliefs and isn’t polemical in the way you see Western Leaders are.
If you have the time to spare, do watch this interview, please! The translator did a very good job too.
Best,
I.
PS – I know some will not watch this because they’re not fans of Piers Morgan (I don’t like him much, but prefer him to Larry King in a way because he’s more honest about what he doesn’t know) – but this was a fairly sympathetic and friendly interview. Just wait for the bit where Ahmadinejad tells him off (in his usual quiet fashion) for demanding answers based of what the former believes are false premises!
Though I will not spend too much time arguing the case, and my brainfog is rather severe tonight; if the sentences don’t flow into one-another I apologise – I’ve been piecing this together over several days.
Nevertheless something is becoming increasingly apparent to me. Following the ‘riots’ and killings since the release of what they tell me is a terrible video depicting the blessed Prophet Muhammad in the most overt and pernicious way, the responses to these protests, especially in our press, have been less than satisfying.
Firstly, let me state what my position is – I embrace freedom of speech as a policy – it is the only way a democratic system can flourish. Does that mean that I think that I should say whatever I want to, because I’m free to do it? That’s a slightly different question. No-doubt such a video was supposed to generate a rather dramatic response, who wouldn’t have thought that it wouldn’t?
The best argument I have read that tries to explain something of the sentiments of those who killed the American Ambassador to Libya in Benghazi is Myriam Francois-Cerrah’s assessment of the situation, which was published on the Huffington Post blog and her own. She writes about the anti-imperial overtones as well as the stripping away of the dignity of those who live in the Muslim world, which has been perpetrated by us, the imperial powers who for years have (in my words) savagely oppressed these people through political, economic and military means.
Now one of the questions you might ask is – so who bears the responsibility for the death of the American Ambassador? Much of the media has now come to the conclusion that it was probably Salafist militants that had staged the attack in response to the death of one of their leaders; that the inflammatory video was merely an excuse to be manipulated, and subsequently carry out the intended assassinations under that pretence, their plans having been already drawn for an attack on the Consulate.
Moreover, the press praises those Libyans who stood up against these militants and drove them away through protest. My question is – why should the Libyan people bear the responsibility of driving away those that have manipulated that abhorrent video and since carried out the killings? Who created those monsters in the first place? And why should the many be judged for the actions of the few? These are important moral questions seldom asked.
No-doubt, the men who perpetrated those crimes behaved in the most barbaric of ways (and I don’t mean to sound like an orientalist here, Arabs are not barbaric) – in murdering a man who was far-removed or completely detached from the atrocious film’s production. And though it is great to see some sort of outward anger to that particular brand of ‘resistance’ or violence, is that merely enough? Could this all be something of a red-herring in terms of subverting our attention from the increasing likelihood of a war with Iran, among other things?
Does reporting such stories not ignore the fact that a sacred right of free-speech was violated, manipulated, subverted for poisonous intents? Isn’t the point of a right that it should be cherished, rather than abused or misused? Or employed in such a way that would no-doubt alienate the rights of those elsewhere who seek to respond?
Secondly, could not some of the blame be redirected elsewhere? You see, the trouble with our idea of the universal, near-inalienable right to free-speech or free-expression comes with a caveat; that is, our right to publish obscene materials comes at the cost of the rights of those who are offended to protest. Moreover, the ‘legitimate’ deaths that occur in response to, say, a terrorist threat are fine, even if innocent civillians are killed (the recently Hit List policy is a testament to it); the deaths that occur as a (initially perceived) result of such a video are not okay. States and governments can be violent, but people can’t be.
Why is that the case? What makes governments immune to the same criticisms that those who are violent face? Why are some deaths acceptable to people whilst others aren’t, even though both are driven by ill-founded rogue ideologies? Truly, in a secular world, why is death even so important to the ‘West’? This conception of death is based on a [militant] secular argument rooted in an ideology that sees itself as threatened by (militant or peaceful) religious ideology, and extremism (excuse the orientalist overtones please), yet does not see itself as the reason for the flourishing of that sort of thinking.*
As I wrote in a comment on the Huffington Post’s site,** that though I abhor violence in principle (whether carried out by militants or nation-states), it is a sad state of affairs I think when Christians, Jews, Hindus etc., don’t react more strongly and protest their point of view when they are attacked, [and when Muslims don’t stand up for the rights of other faiths, of the rights of God’s word to be heard in the world, through whatever authentic religion and medium].
The world has lost its sense of the sacred – the only thing that seems to matter any more are the socio-economic imperatives that govern us – don’t do anything that might affect the economy and we’ll all get on fine – and I don’t like that. All that seems to matter is our ‘rights’. Religious space is being increasingly encroached upon; it is the duty of the faithful of whatever religion to speak out against the violation of the sacred space.
Humanity is at a loss, and I think because we’ve lost that sense of the sacred. How many of us roam ‘free’ and fed whilst most of the world starves; how much freedom do we have whilst propping up dictatorships elsewhere? How many ‘rights’ do we uphold for ourselves whilst systematically violating the rights of others; yet we rain fire from the skies, slay millions (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) or let others do it whilst we look away (Romania, Indonesia, Latin America).Where is the sacred duty of feeding and clothing the poor, trying to make peace, sincerly liberating people from tyrants and occupation, of preserving the lives of innocents?
Back to the point – what are the moral obligations of those who produced such a film, knowing full-well that the fury of the Muslims world would be unleashed in the form of demonstrations outside of the US Embassies or local governments, and by a very small minority, these protests would inevitably turn into a violent spectacle. And oddly enough, this violence didn’t occur in the ‘West’, for obvious reason, but such a film is another orientalist tool to make the people of the East appear more violent than the civilised West, even though more have died in the name of secular nationalism, communism, and capitalism than have died at the hands of such protesters.
Should not Muslims be enraged and protest (peacefuly) at such an insult to the figure they hold most dear in their religion? Should they merely learn to accept this sort venomous speech? Do they not have a right to be offended? To speak their minds? To affirm that though free-speech is an important part of living in the modern world, we should use it responsibly and in the interest for promoting cooperation between peoples, to promote an actual demoractic world? You see, you can’t blame peoples’ religious persuasion of creating discord among them – people are in my view, fundamentally religious or driven by ideology – whereas they can choose what it is that they say.
“The Church of the Nativity was besieged in 2002 whilst the Latin patriarch said : ‘the basilica is a place of refuge for everybody, even fighters, as long as they lay down their arms. We have an obligation to give refuge to Palestinians and Israelis alike.’
That is an example of the kind of human rights and humanity we need to get back to. Not the ones dicatated to us by the state.”
*Moreover, if you want another reading on it, this conception of a good deahth is rooted in capitalism – think about it, violence in a country, especially if people die, has adverse effects on that country’s economy – consumer confidence decreases, foreign investment lessens. Dead people cannot buy goods, cannot work and feed the system. And when these legitimate deaths are carried out through illegitimate wars and deaths, mechanisms are built so that these countries’ economic output are channelled toward the global capitalist networks.
As an example, why else do we militarily interveine in Libya and not Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Egypt?
**(I don’t think I’ve given up any intellectual property rights here)
Alas, my eyes are tearing at reading this. I’m not one of those people who’ll easily rally around a flag, and nor do I believe in the cult of personality – that’s usually (in my humble opinion) the way of the demagogue and their ilk and followers.
However I’ve just found out that Ms. Yaqoob has resigned from the Respect Party, of which I’m a proud member – the reasons, though not stated below, are probably obvious to most – though we’ll see if this gets any news coverage in the next few days – if only to villify Mr. Galloway MP.
Finally, I had thought – there was a decent, straight-talking principled woman of colour and of a minority religion who might actually suggest decent policy ideas and be able to help rally a grass-roots and/or working-class movement in the UK (for those three of you who read me, you may or may not know that I’m fanatically Leftist!); I was hoping that she’d actually be able to help redress the imbalance of coverage and negative spin on Muslim women in the UK (Ms Warsi doesn’t appear to be making a positive impact, and her relegation in the latest reshuffle just goes to show how tokenistic her appointment in the Cabinet was in the first place…-plus, she’s a Tory – yeuch!) – and my hopes were that this was a positive step for British politics. Especially given the tone of ‘Muscular Liberalism’ from our Fearless Leader and the notion that multiculturalism had ‘failed’ in Britain – she was supposed to be our saving grace.
A friend tells me that this is probably the end of Respect as we know it – they already lost Kate Hudson as the candidate for Manchester Central last week, and in the last few years the SWP and other movements haven’t appeared to get on with Respect proper… I’m wondering if I’ll have to shift my political allegiances…although that’s a pretty cheap thing to do in the end, as I still believe in the tenets and credo of Respct.
Back to the sordid, smarmy tripartite menage of UK Politics then. This just really sucks. If Respect is to collapse or lose momentum, it will set us, as the multicultural community (no, not just male Muslims of South Asian origin) back by several years; with the rise of the (might as well be) militant EDL (God help us!) and the BNP (some sort of cosmic joke?!) and the increasingly disenfranchised white working-class in Britain – this spells disaster….unless we can find some other voice that screams out in longing for the equality, respect, and community-spirit we so desperately need
Britain isn’t broken. Don’t get me wrong. But there are several interest groups seeking to widen the cracks, then create and deepen chasms in our society – moreover Government policy doesn’t help, and won’t help. This isn’t a problem with the various ‘cultures’ and ethnic groups in Britain – I think it has more to do with a fundamentally different approach to nation states (see my anarchism seep through?!) – that we are able to hold more than one allegience, with integrity.
One might think that the minorities were struggling to integrate because they/we don’t have a voice or a plurality of them – but it is more a case that up until recently, and at least and especially since 9/11, our voices were easy to ignore – so long as the Kebab shops remained open, Britain worked fine. And then Respect came along and gained a fair amount of positive coverage – its figures often asked to speak at televised debates/discussion programmes (better them than that Quilliam lot – egh!)
Now, there doesn’t seem to be a competing, dignified political platform for ‘us’ to join (Labour’s recent fielding a male Pakistani Muslim in the Bradford West by-election just goes to show how tokenistic and shallow Labour politics are).
I’ve just discovered a few lectures by Dr Seyyed Hossein Nasr, University Professor at George Washington University, eminent scholar, ‘traditionalist’/perennialist, often called a polymath and probably the most important Islamic philosopher of modern times.
The topic of this talk is ‘Conciousness‘; a term that’s often whitewashed out of the modern discourse which Dr Nasr agues is what will lead to man’s ultimate destruction (I’m paraphrasing, and these are just my interpretations of his talk); we have been alienated from ourselves, and our place in the Cosmos, that we see ourselves from the external rather than the internal, which is what has caused such blind arrogance of the ‘scientistic’ world view.
Anyhow, I hope you enjoy it! There’s another great talk on YouTube which further expounds on his worldview labelled ‘God and Man’ which I recommend highly as well.
They’re very easy to follow (as far as philosophy talks go) because of the clarity of his speech, I managed to sit through the first one in one sitting without too many ‘brainfog moments’. So to all you fellow sleepy people reading this, don’t panic!
I’m not sure of what to make of Obama any more – I must say that I was never a fan to begin with, although preferred him infinitely to Senator McCain – someone who had fought for his country and should know better than to promote rampant warmongering. But goodness!
With the recent revelations from the White House about the so-called ‘Kill List’, which effectively means that the executive has the unrestrained right to sign-off on any drone attacks and kills on alleged terrorists (so far targeting Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan – funnily enough they’re only technically ‘at war’ in one of those countries); it turns out you needn’t occupy a country in order to terrorise its populace). Back to McCain, the Washington Post writes about how he “expressed dismay that presidential aides were leaking national security information to bolster the president’s foreign policy credentials.” – again, from a man who has allegedly seen the realities of war, the destruction it brings to the lives of civilians, his audacity astounds me.
The word alleged is the operative one, in many respects, not least because it means that the right to a trial by jury of any so-called terrorist; although that issue itself isn’t a new one either. Dozens of detainees at Guantanamo Bay camp are still held without charge nor trial.
Moreover the redefining of a ‘terrorist’ as any adult male who falls within a strike zone, until posthumously proven otherwise demonstrates, how the War on Terror has reached very new depths. Imaginable depths, of course, but depths nonetheless. Clearly, the loss of life of innocents is no longer a concern for the administration, or perhaps it has never been so. The track-record of these strikes is very telling, the loss of life of ‘innocents’ outnumbers the deaths of alleged terrorists by a factor of dozens, in all likelihood. Of course they forget that terrorists are people too, in that they tend to live in houses populated by family members, i.e. wives, children, even grandchildren (as we saw in the Bin Laden case last year) – it turns out that they’re all fair game for now; even though no actual attack has been successful on US soil in years.
Commentators are right to be weary of what is a growing trend in this atrocious phantom war perpetuated by the American Oligarchy, bolstered unashamedly by the intelligentsia;, the National Defence Authorization Act would make it legal for the military to hold anyone suspected of terrorism, including a US citizen, without charge and indefinitely.
Though a Maryland court recently declared that particular clause (in as much as it refers to US-citizens) as unconstitutional as it violates the First and Fourth Amendments, I doubt that will put a damper on the military’s activities. With its current track record, if the case is taken to the Supreme Court I doubt very much that they will take significant issue with this law; after all, it was just last week that they again refused to hear cases of some detainees who are still being held at Guantanamo Bay. It’s funny how the human rights of US citizens seem more important than those of innocent civilians in Pakistan etc. But then, the blood of brown-people in far-off lands is cheaper than that of Americans.
The high court sided with the Obama administration and rejected appeals by seven detainees who lost their bid for freedom in cases before U.S. federal judges in Washington, D.C.. The court issued no statement with its order and no justice publicly dissented.
So where next for the War on Terror? The DoD budget, which is set at something like 1.3 trn USD over the next few years, with special emphasis on drone strikes and war by proxy, as well as the passage of the NDAA and the revelations about the President’s kill list, suggests that an all-out infringement of the human rights of all, US citizens, alleged terrorists, innocent bystanders is likely to continue. The US Constitution will continue to be eroded.
Allow me to speculate…This war will not end for some time, I’m foreseeing a time where the U.S will just be at perpetual war, the Constitution will likely be suspended in the case of armed conflict in Iran (although Martial Law already seems to be in action) – meanwhile the coffers of those on Wall Street will overflow, and the lives of the 99 per cent will become increasingly choked. But what with all the mass paranoia, for some years yet (though I hope it comes sooner), the citizenry will stand idly by as their inalienable rights are violated and atrocious crimes are committed in their name.
Heightened Senses 