Open letter to Pervez Hoodbhoy - Why do you hide under the imperial

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<http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/12563-muslims-must-not-pay-price-for-europes-identity-crisis-.html>
'; 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<http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/12/islamofascism-zionofascism-judeofascism.html>cited
in item-2.


   1.

   Editorial - Another Hegelian Mind Fck: 'Muslims Must Not Pay Price for
   Europe's Identity
Crisis'<http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/12/hegelian-mind-fck-attacking-islam.html>
   2.

   Minarets blocking the view of the Swiss Alps
(PDF)<http://humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/minarets-blocking-the-view-of-swiss-alps.pdf>
   3.

   Letter to Pervez Hoodbhoy in response to his 'The Confessions of a
   Groveling Pakistani Native Orientalist' December 25,
2009<http://humanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/letter-to-pervez-hoodbhoy-the-confessions-of-a-groveling-pakistani-native-orientalist.pdf>


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 outsite 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<http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/#Modernity-Simplified>
.

Zahir Ebrahim
only a plebe
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org