{"article":{"id":246876,"heading":"Response to Alan Hart's 'Palestinian people power - could it be a game-changer?'","author":"Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org","created":"2011-07-10 20:08:34","modified":"2011-07-10 20:08:34","last_modified":"Mon, 11 Jul 2011 03:08:34","article":"
\r\n

\r\nZahir\r\nEbrahim's Response to Alan Hart's 'Palestinian people power - could\r\nit be a game-changer?'<\/span><\/b><\/p>\r\n

\r\nProject\r\nHumanbeingsfirst.org<\/u><\/span><\/p>\r\n

\r\nFriday,\r\nJuly 08, 2011 | Revised July 09, 2011<\/p>\r\n

\r\nFirst\r\nof all, thanks to Alan Hart for his article<\/u>\r\nwhich I read on Salem-News. It takes a brave man to see, and even\r\nbraver one to speak.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nZionism\r\nis indeed the Jews' worst enemy.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nHowever,\r\nwhen we focus on Zionism, we somehow seem to overlook that it was\r\nconstructed by someone. Who? What for? Who aids and abets it? How has\r\nit lasted that long? Which forces drive it so that it has endured for\r\nalmost 200 years? AIPAC? Chabad? The Knesset? Washington? \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nMy\r\ncritique of Alan Hart, and of most of the conscionable Western\r\nwitnesses to the genocidal crimes against humanity being purveyed\r\nupon an indigenous peoples in Palestine during our own lifetime (not\r\nsomething we just read about in history books and for which we can do\r\nnothing about today), is that they only speak of what they see,\r\nrather eloquently too, but almost always superficially. Yes we all\r\ncan see the dead bodies, doesn't take a Nostradamus to perceive\r\nwhat's already before one's eyes. But they don't speak of what they\r\ndon't see. Like the iceberg, 90% is hidden from sight. And like the\r\niceberg, it is also known to exist, and to lurk just beneath the\r\nsurface. It is not secret or esoteric knowledge, nor is it a\r\nclassified state-secret. And just like it is for the iceberg, most\r\ndescriptions of it only describe the visible 10% above the surface. I\r\nam not sure what profound wisdom is gleaned from reading such\r\nnarratives. I am sure studying and documenting crimes against\r\nhumanity is necessary. If eruditely documenting is the main purpose,\r\nthan I believe people are doing a terrific job of it. Even the senior\r\nBush White House advisor proclaimed this to the New York Times in\r\n2004:<\/p>\r\n

\r\n‘We’re\r\nan empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while\r\nyou’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will —\r\nwe’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can\r\nstudy too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re\r\nhistory’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to\r\njust study what we do.’ — Senior Bush Advisor, The New\r\nYork Times, October 17, 2004<\/p>\r\n

\r\nBut\r\nif changing what the “history's actors” are doing before\r\nthey accomplish all their goals in incremental stages, is the main\r\ngoal of dissent, then these erudite documentations<\/span>\r\netc. are as meaningless as boasted above by the history's actors\r\nthemselves. This is an empirical fact. Not a matter of opinion.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nIf\r\nno thinker and lauded exponent of Palestine will see the 90% which\r\ngives the entire foundational substance to the visible 10%, then\r\ntheir articulation of the problem is only as deep (or shallow) as the\r\n10% visible iceberg. It is forever relegated to studying the “new\r\nrealities”<\/i> being daily created by the “history's\r\nactors”.<\/i> As they like to put it with considerable chutzpah\r\nand hubris, “to just study what we do.”<\/i><\/p>\r\n

\r\nSo,\r\nin my moments of stupidity (since no brilliant<\/span>\r\npeoples like all the Nobel peace prize winners and academic\r\nprofessors and scholars ever seem to think of this, I must be the\r\nstupid one to do so), I have to wonder that while how easy it is to\r\nsee the 10% of the visible iceberg mass for dissent-chiefs, why is it\r\nso hard to see the remaining 90% for those who do see the 10%? \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nVirtually\r\nwithout exception, all famous and lauded narrators of Palestine in\r\nthe dissent-space keep coming up with faulty frameworks to explain\r\nwhat they do see in Palestine. The rare exception which links it to\r\nthe larger global agenda in the world, is either immediately\r\nmarginalized, or ignored. Or, the oddballs inexplicably marginalize\r\nthemselves in the eyes of rational people who might otherwise pay\r\nattention to them, by simultaneously uttering some outlandish\r\ngibberish.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThis\r\nblindsight amidst the learned simply drives me up the wall,\r\nespecially when peoples, far more knowledgeable and experienced than\r\nI, indulge in it. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nWhy\r\ndo they do that? Are they blind? Or, are they stupid? Or, am I really\r\nreally brilliant<\/span>? I would safely strike out\r\nthe last item self-servingly put there if I were you, because I don't\r\nbelieve it myself. Nothing I have said in the zillion words on my\r\nwebsite is rocket science. Then, is there some other reason for these\r\nstupidities which ought to remain unspeakable?<\/p>\r\n

\r\nFor\r\nwhat little my opinion is worth, I have still tried to address this\r\nvery question in my May 15, 2010 Pamphlet: \"How to Return to\r\nPalestine\" (\r\nhumanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com\/p\/pamphlet-how-to-return-to-palestine.html\r\n). \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nAnd\r\nin my view, I am sorry to say that the heartfelt narratives of Alan\r\nHart, as truly heart warming as they always are, seldom do any\r\nanalytical justice to unraveling the core issues which pertain to the\r\ninvisible 90%. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nI\r\nam really sorry to say this of peoples' heroes. But I have to say it\r\nbecause that's the only way to lick this totem pole of hero worship\r\nof dissent-chiefs. To boldly challenge the lauded and brand-name\r\nnarrators and give them the opportunity to think afresh. None of us\r\nare god, prophet, or all knowing and all seeing. And unless we begin\r\nto acknowledge that fact, that we aren't, that our understanding of\r\nreality must always remain tentative and continually subject to\r\ncorrection, that we can actually stand to gain new insights into the\r\nproblem-space only if we stop pretending that we already understand\r\nit all, no freaking sunshine is ever gonna enter the dark-matter\r\nbetween our ears. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nPeople\r\nthrong to Alan Hart, just like to the other dissent-chiefs. He is\r\nrespected, widely published, and wins many accolades for his\r\nnarratives (and also the ire of his Zionist antagonists of course). \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nBut\r\nis it rocket science that he actually misses by a mile on the hidden\r\nbut only in plainsight 90% of the iceberg?<\/p>\r\n

\r\nIf\r\nI can see it, why can't Alan Hart? He is, I wholly admit just by\r\nlooking at his imposing credentials, far more experienced,\r\naccomplished, and politically astute, than a lowly plebeian.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nOmissions\r\nare a serious offence. So serious in fact, that Aldous Huxley stated\r\nit thusly:<\/p>\r\n

\r\n‘The\r\ngreatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing\r\nsomething, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still\r\ngreater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By\r\nsimply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.\r\nChurchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and\r\nsuch facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as\r\nundesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much\r\nmore effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent\r\ndenunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence\r\nis not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of\r\nsocial friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda\r\nmust be made as effective as the negative.’ — Aldous\r\nHuxley, Preface (circa 1946) to Brave New World, 1931, Harper, pg. 11<\/p>\r\n

\r\nIf\r\ncurious about how an ordinary plebeian thinks bluntly on the 90% that\r\nno Westerner who is famous as an academic, a journalist, or a\r\nscholar, will touch with a ten-foot pole in their erudite\r\nscholarship, see the first three parts of My Confusion Series. Part-2\r\nand Part-3 are perhaps directly pertinent as a response to Alan\r\nHart's most significant omissions. Here is a link:<\/p>\r\n

\r\nprint-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com\/2010\/12\/my-confusion-invisible-rothschild-usa.html<\/p>\r\n

\r\nUnless\r\nAlan Hart goes there, my going there is ineffective and wasted effort\r\n- because, I don't carry an imposing resume like Alan Hart. No one\r\never listens to a plebeian. But people pay much attention to someone\r\nlike Alan Hart. When I sent my maiden 2003 manuscript to 30\r\npublishers via Fedex at considerable cost, only six bothered to say\r\nno thanks. Twenty four didn't reply. I don't even know if they ever\r\ngot to the right person. The publisher who published John Perkins'\r\nConfessions of Economic Hitman in 2004, on Perkins' kind referral\r\n(since I had requested him to refer me to his publisher after\r\nlearning that his book too had been turned down dozens of times),\r\ntalked to me by phone only to let me know that publishing is not\r\nabout a cause, but about profits. An unknown first of all is hard to\r\npublish because he does not have readership. Secondly, as the\r\nBerrett-Koehler representative had put it, and this was the most\r\ndisconcerting to me, one with a Middle Eastern name will be presumed\r\nto be biased by the American readers since his own peoples are being\r\nkilled, hence no one will buy my book - so sorry. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nIn\r\nthose days, I still greatly admired Noam Chomsky as he had been one\r\nof my most inspiring professors at college. My maiden manuscript sat\r\nin Chomsky's in-basket for review for months, as it did on almost all\r\nbrand-name dissent-chiefs I had ever met in my life (including names\r\nlike Daniel Ellsberg<\/span> and Tariq Ali –\r\nto both of these prominent chiefs I had hand-delivered my manuscript,\r\nin those days I was still a bit green behind the ears), before\r\nChomsky let me know that he will likely never get to it. He said he\r\nwas too busy and there were just way too many things in his\r\nin-basket, which I interpreted as there were too many important\r\npeoples ahead of me in his in-basket. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nHoward\r\nZinn, what a remarkable teacher that late historian was, on a cold\r\ncall from me to his home in Boston, immediately agreed to review my\r\nmanuscript after we chatted a bit about his own million copy\r\nbestseller. In fact, Howard Zinn reviewed two drafts for me. And when\r\nI was unsuccessful in lining up any prominent publisher, Zinn even\r\nwrote me a short but stellar<\/span> commendation\r\nletter to send to publishers. Despite all that, I got zero interest\r\nfrom any mainstream publisher. Seven Stories Press who had published\r\nChomsky's 911 booklet also talked to me, said my book was\r\ninteresting, but that they liked first-hand research (whatever that\r\nmeant). In fact the title for my essay “They Dared to Knock on\r\nmy door” which was the first part of my manuscript, if I recall\r\ncorrectly, was suggested by Greg at Seven Stories Press. As I now\r\nrecall, he had also noted that as an unknown in this crowded field\r\nwhere mainly brand-names are magnets, and others have to have some\r\nunique hook, my narrative as a Muslim complaining about Islamophobia\r\nin America and America's fictitious war on terror just won't sell. I\r\nshould look into self-publishing. Sorry. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nI\r\nam not sure that Alan Hart has had such problems. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nAll\r\nthose publisher turndowns back in 2003, at least in my case, were\r\npartly symptomatic of what is empirically obvious. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nWe,\r\nas part of our human nature, naturally tend to listen to those in\r\npositions of power, those with titles, those with published\r\naccolades, those who have met kings and queens, prime\r\nministers<\/span> and presidents, those who look sharp and talk sharp,\r\nand tend to accept from them, on the slenderest evidence, that which\r\nalready meets with the presuppositions of our own worldview. And we\r\nconcomitantly<\/span> reject that which doesn't,\r\ndespite preponderance of evidence, continually demanding more, more,\r\nmore. It's as if cognitive dissonance prevents us from giving up our\r\nold beliefs<\/span>, even reaffirming them to make\r\nthem even more strongly held when shown to be wrong.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nIf\r\nwe are in the mainstream, our heroes are the mainstream heroes. We\r\ndon't hear dissent. And if we are in the dissentstream, our heroes\r\nare invariably the dissent-chiefs and we applaud<\/span>\r\nourselves for our brilliance that we are not sheep. But empirically,\r\nwe are each beholden to our natural inclinations, to our worldviews\r\nhowsoever we may have acquired them, whether by inheritance, or\r\nvicariously implanted by the Mighty Wurlitzer (\r\nprint-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com\/2009\/05\/note-on-mighty-wurlitzer.html\r\n).<\/p>\r\n

\r\nAnd\r\neach of us have our own heroes and storytellers we generally\r\ngravitate toward. And it is they, our heroes, people whom we respect\r\nand admire, who invariably inform us what is the matter with whatever\r\nthey might be interested in. This aspect of our natural propensity\r\nwas partly captured by Bertrand Russell thusly:<\/p>\r\n

\r\n'What\r\na man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his\r\ndesires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If\r\na man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts [or\r\nworldview], he will scrutinize it closely, and unless [and at times\r\neven when] the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe\r\nit. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a\r\nreason for acting in accordance with his instincts [or worldview], he\r\nwill accept it even on the slenderest evidence.' — Bertrand\r\nRussell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, 1919, page 147<\/p>\r\n

\r\nWhat\r\nBertrand Russell neglected to mention is that we tend to accept such\r\nnarratives on “the slenderest evidence”<\/i> more\r\neasily when it is brought to us by our respective heroes. But Adolph\r\nHitler didn't. He not only recognized, but also capitalized on such\r\nshrewd understanding of human psychology (see below). \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nTherefore,\r\nhaving become acutely aware of all this through my own successive\r\nfailures to convince anyone of anything (unless I am preaching to the\r\nchoir - and what's the great benefit of that), I began tackling\r\npeoples' heroes directly, beginning with my own hero in my earlier\r\nlife, Noam Chomsky. In the slenderest hope that if I can get\r\nsomeone's hero to interlocute<\/span> with a\r\nplebeian, and can miraculously change his mind, his flock will\r\nnaturally follow. It hasn't happened yet, but I keep trying. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nTo\r\nyou, the reader, what I say will be dismissed trivially. But have the\r\nsame thing be stated by the pundit\/scholar\/chief you admire –\r\nwell, try your own experiments.<\/span> I know\r\nsomeone who even did the following experiment<\/span>:\r\nsent one of his rejected articles again, by doing some simple word\r\nsubstitution, mainly replaced his own name and put “Thomas\r\nFriedman” and mailed it back. The same article which had been\r\nrejected on specious grounds of racism earlier, was accepted with\r\nthat made up authorship of a Jewish brand-name<\/span>,\r\nand substituting<\/span> two words identifying one\r\npeople with another people. I think the reader can well guess what\r\nthose might have been. Later the person let the publication know that\r\nhe had only done that experiment to prove to them the natural\r\nperception bias, not to mention vile prejudice which had gone into\r\nrejecting his first submission. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nTherefore,\r\nthrough this response to Alan Hart's article, I once again try to\r\ninterlocute with a brand-name chief. I invite Alan Hart, the narrator\r\nof Palestinian travails, to offer a response to an ordinary\r\nplebeian's missive by examining what's argued in Part-2 above. If I\r\nam shown the errors in my thinking, I will humbly bow my head in\r\nshame and quietly slink away to rethink and relearn from the master.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nI\r\nhave previously also challenged Alan Hart's other narratives -\r\nperhaps he never saw it. The following appeared as comment on January\r\n18, 2009 on Abidullah Jan's famous (now defunct)\r\ndictatorshipwatch.com:<\/p>\r\n

\r\nhumanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com\/2010\/09\/cacheof-the-undeniable-nazism-and-holocaust-in-our-age-dw-page-comment-zahirebrahim-january182009.jpg<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe\r\nresponse article from which that comment was excerpted, seems to be\r\nfound nowhere on the web. I just uploaded the full article PDF which\r\nwas written in response to Alan Hart's in Jan 2009:<\/p>\r\n

\r\nhumanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com\/2011\/07\/no-no-not-thenew-nazis-jan172009-uploaded-july082011.pdf<\/p>\r\n

\r\nObviously,\r\nno two people agree on anything. So, the reader might well ask,\r\nwhat's wrong with everyone having their own point of view in dissent?\r\nIt is, after all, dissent. Dissent means to disagree – don't\r\nit? The most powerful description of dissent I ever saw is this, by\r\nVaclav Havel:<\/p>\r\n

\r\n'I\r\ntoo think the intellectual should constantly disturb, should bear\r\nwitness to the misery of the world, should be provocative by being\r\nindependent, should rebel against all hidden and open pressure and\r\nmanipulations, should be the chief doubter of systems, of power and\r\nits incantations, should be a witness to their mendacity. For this\r\nvery reason, an intellectual cannot fit into any role that might be\r\nassigned to him, nor can he ever be made to fit into any of the\r\nhistories written by the victors. An intellectual essentially doesn't\r\nbelong anywhere; he stands out as an irritant wherever he is; he does\r\nnot fit into any pigeonhole completely.' — Vaclav Havel, cited\r\nin Responsibility of Intellectuals – Redux, March 03, 2007,\r\nprint-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com\/2007\/12\/responsibility-of-intellectuals-redux.html<\/p>\r\n

\r\nSo,\r\nwhat's wrong with each one of us standing alone, in our own little\r\nHyde Park screaming corner, blaring our own irritants into the ears\r\nof power? Okay, some have more prominent perches than others, but\r\nthat's just capitalism, egalitarianism, meritocratism.<\/span>\r\nWhat's wrong with that? You are just upset that the NYT does not\r\npublish you or pays any attention to your submissions – why\r\ndon't you go back to engineering where you still have some earned\r\ncredibility,<\/span> and evidently were also quite\r\nsuccessful? What do you have to show for ten years of activism\r\nanyway? By your own admission, you haven't changed a single mind!\r\nSuch cynicism is what I constantly hear from both my trusted friends,\r\nas well as my antagonists (those who were formerly<\/span>\r\nmy friends but today I suspect just hate my guts because I refuse to\r\nsuffer fools any longer). \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nIn\r\nfact, I was even informed by one of my very wise colleagues in\r\nPakistan when I had offered him a copy of my unpublished manuscript\r\nas keepsake, that I was wasting my time if I expected it to make any\r\ndifference even if it was published by Simon & Schuster and\r\nbecame a bestseller on the New York Times list. His opinion was that\r\npeople don't change their mind by reading a book. (At that time I of\r\ncourse didn't want to believe it, but now I am convinced of that fact\r\nmyself.) My uncle too had reliably informed me that I will be\r\n“disappeared” the moment I came into notice of the\r\nintelligence apparatus – and since the FBI had already visited\r\nme twice, my days were surely numbered. (That I did believe,<\/span>\r\nand still do fear – but seek refuge in none except in my own\r\nfaith.) All that was back in 2003 when I first started opening my\r\nmouth, and that was after I had already been exercising my legs and\r\nmy lungs in anti-war protest marches since 2002-2003. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nSo\r\nwhat difference does dissent make? What has the bold courage of a\r\nhandful really changed? Whether it be of those much sought after\r\nbrand-named dissent-chiefs, or of the unknown tens of thousands of\r\nother individuals who feel an inner compulsion to not accept\r\nvillainous matters as they are?<\/p>\r\n

\r\nI\r\nsincerely believe the following: that those who principally side with\r\ntruth, those who bear witness, those who seek fair justice for their\r\nfellow man, and take personal risks in doing so when they don't need\r\nto – when they could just as easily be pursuing their own\r\n'American Dream' like the rest of silent bystanders – are all\r\nprincipally holding the same book (the book of justice,\r\nmetaphorically speaking).<\/p>\r\n

\r\nBut\r\nwe are not all on the same page. Obviously. That is our undoing. Why?\r\nWhy do all of us have to be on the same page?<\/p>\r\n

\r\nBecause,\r\nwe are often unable to separate the myriad obfuscating issues into\r\ntheir proper causal relationships of cause and effect. The causality\r\nis also hierarchical, and often obfuscated by lower order less\r\nsignificant bits masquerading themselves as the higher order bits. We\r\nalso often seem to confuse dependent variables of a complex system\r\nwith its independent variables which are often calculatingly masked\r\nby the dependent variables for obvious reason. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nIn\r\nother words, the subject of hegemony in modern times is very complex\r\n- even though it may be as old as mankind - far more complex than\r\nsimply the dead bodies strewn from Palestine to Iraq to Afghanistan\r\nto Pakistan which all can see. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nTo\r\nseparate out the causal relationships which are often highly nuanced,\r\nand almost always cloaked in deception, is not easy. It requires a\r\ngreat deal of commonsense - a commodity which appears to be less\r\ncommon than the name might suggest. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nSo,\r\nhere is a test of commonsense for the reader whose moral compulsion\r\ndrives him or her to no longer remain a silent bystander: all see the\r\npower of AIPAC and Chabad, some write major treatise on how they\r\ninfluence the United States to favor Israel. From Paul Findley in\r\n1985 (They Dare to Speak Out) to Mearsheimer and Walt in 2007 ( The\r\nIsrael Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy), and in the ten thousand\r\narticles across the Israel-Palestine landscape, these Zionist lobby\r\ngroups are indicted for their unelected power-wielding upon the\r\nelected representatives<\/span> of the people. Can\r\nyou suggest what makes these Zionist Lobby groups so powerful? The\r\nbrand-named academics and former elected officials who write those\r\nnarratives haven't. Can you, dear reader? It isn't rocket science.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nMy\r\nown limited thinking on this matter is argued in the cited Pamphlet.\r\nI am sure others with more wherewithal can do much better. The\r\nproblem is – all whom one imagines as having more wherewithal\r\ndon't want to go there! This unspeakable iron wall no one desires to\r\nbreach.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nWhen\r\nit comes to Zionism and Palestine, a land that was taken over by\r\ndeception and treachery, and whose narratives are replete with both\r\n\"beneficial cognitive diversity\" (ala Cass Sunstein) and\r\nTrojan Horses (ala fifth columnists from among the Palestinians\r\nthemselves – see\r\nprint-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com\/2011\/07\/palestine-enemy-within-by-zahirebrahim.html\r\n), all effectively lead the struggle away from focussing on what and\r\nwho are Zionistan's real primemovers. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe\r\nstruggle for Palestine has been replete with red herrings (a smelly\r\nfish that a fugitive drags across the path in order to put the\r\npursuing dogs off the trail). Every single one of these, as far as\r\none can tell, is either been planted by, or aided and abetted by,\r\nlauded dissent-chiefs with brand-names. Don't believe it? See it for\r\nyourself in “The Endless trail of red herrings” (\r\nprint-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com\/2007\/12\/endless-red-herrings.html\r\n).<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThus,\r\nthe direct addressing of the behind the scene powers which can\r\npotentially add some efficacy to the otherwise sterile pursuit of\r\njustice in Palestine, is made impossible when no one will go there.\r\nEither deliberately as fabricated or controlled dissent, or out of\r\nsheer ignorance, or out of self-preservation. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nWhat\r\nI fail to grasp is why should the Palestinians in Diaspora refuse to\r\ngo there? They have everything to gain, and only their good 'American\r\nDreams' to lose? Is that even a fraction of what their brethren brave\r\ndaily in their existential struggle on ground zero, still refusing to\r\ngive in despite burying<\/span> their dead daily,\r\nlike the un-identified child in the photograph in Alan Hart's article\r\n( salem-news.com\/gphotos\/1310003079.jpg )? But we equally see such\r\nomissions in the Palestinians' own narratives as well. This\r\nis amply demonstrated<\/span> in my responses to\r\nSalman\r\nAbu Sitta<\/u>,\r\nAntoine\r\nRaffoul<\/u>,\r\nIsmail\r\nZayid<\/u>,\r\nKhalil\r\nNakhleh<\/u>,\r\nShadi\r\nNassar<\/u>,\r\nMustafa\r\nBarghouti and Anna Baltzer<\/u>,\r\nJeff\r\nGates<\/u>,\r\nJeff\r\nBlankfort<\/u>,\r\net.\r\nal<\/u>.\r\n\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nOur\r\ncollective inability to analyze causality has been deliberately made\r\nprodigious. Either through co-option, or through dumbing us down\r\nwhile letting us pretend that we are super-smart! I call it the “IVY\r\nLeague Morons Syndrome” and there is an article with that title\r\non my website. The upshot of it all is that it ultimately succeeds in\r\nkeeping us from opening the book of justice which we all evidently\r\ncare about, on its most significant page simultaneously. That, is the\r\nreal purpose of introducing \"beneficial cognitive diversity\"\r\nthrough \"cognitive infiltration\" (sic!).<\/p>\r\n

\r\nLet's\r\nchange that calculus of subterfuge and energetic runs on treadmills\r\nto soothe the conscience, which have been in any case crafted for us\r\nby the “history's actors” themselves.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nBut\r\nfirstly, one can't change anything by patting oneself on the back for\r\none's efforts in the pursuit of justice. Which is unfortunately\r\nlargely the tenor and character of modern day dissent-chiefs as well\r\nas their flock. Not everyone is like that, but many appear to be on\r\nego trips for their own narrow self-interests, their shrill laments\r\non behalf of the poor victims notwithstanding.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nSecondly,\r\nthe rank and file of dissent, when we are conscionable peoples who do\r\nlend our consciences to our moral endeavors as an inner compulsion,\r\nprimarily do so to soothe our own consciences. This should be\r\nself-evident, but isn't. We, generally speaking, haven't the capacity\r\nnor the wherewithal to shrewdly employ both mind and hand to ENGINEER\r\na struggle. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nI\r\nreally don't understand that when we easily see the crimes against\r\nhumanity are diabolically engineered, that both consent and dissent\r\nis Machiavellianly manufactured – the engineering of consent –\r\nwhy we persist in feeling that we can counter villainous tyranny\r\nun-engineered? That, by just randomly, and largely symbolically,\r\nexercising our consciences, our lungs, and our pens, for whatever\r\nstrikes our immediate fancy, we can make a difference whatsoever?\r\nToday that fancy is the BDS and Sailing to Gaza. Yesterday it was the\r\nendless weekend-only protest marches of a few hours before people\r\nreturned to the pursuits of their 'American Dreams' on weekdays. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nNot\r\nto take anything away from the courageous people who are\r\nparticipating in these exercises – even the optimists will have\r\nto admit they are largely symbolic. BDS is deconstructed here (\r\nbloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com\/2011\/04\/15\/response-to-leaked-zionist-strategy-paper-to-counter-bds-by-zahir-ebrahim\/\r\n). \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nAnd\r\nI will openly admit that if I had a tenth of the courage and a\r\nhundredth of conscience of these moral activists who are putting\r\ntheir precious lives on the line sailing to GAZA, even if\r\nsymbolically, for symbols of resistance are equally important to any\r\nstruggle, I would have joined them. Since I am thus far unwilling to\r\nbrave Israeli bullets whizzing by my head, I am unwilling to say\r\nanything further on the subject (\r\nprint-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com\/2010\/12\/zahirs-response-mary-rizzo-ken-okeefe.html\r\n) except to point out that these symbols of resistance are indeed\r\nentirely symbolic. Ten million sailing to GAZA from all directions\r\nhowever, would surely alter that calculus. That requires engineering.\r\nHope and wishful thinking don't create engineering, nor do moral\r\ncompulsions. The actual exercise of engineering does. That requires\r\nenormous focus, enormous resources, and more than some iota of brains\r\nto orchestrate it. \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nA\r\nprerequisite to engineering an effective struggle for change which\r\ndoesn't solely run on the treadmill, is to understand the myriad\r\nforces which maintain the status quo. Many of these forces are masked\r\nand layered in deception. They almost always stay behind the scenes\r\nleaving their henchmen to be visible. So we neither know ourselves\r\nvery well, nor unfortunately our enemy. Sun Tzu's following wisdom on\r\nthe Art of War makes our shortcomings rather apparent:<\/p>\r\n

\r\n'If\r\nyou know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of\r\na hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every\r\nvictory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the\r\nenemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.'<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe\r\nmain harbingers of engineering any change against villainous tyranny,\r\nI have lamentably come to realize, are not going to be ordinary\r\npeoples like us plebeians. Typically, we are just the crowd who\r\nfollow our leaders. I am sure you reading this is an exception. But\r\nmost of dissent falls into this category.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe\r\nunfortunate reality is that very few people think independently. I\r\nhave found so much truth in the oft quoted statistic by poets and\r\nsociologists alike, that \"less then 2% people in any population\r\nactually think, 8% think they think, and 90% wont be caught dead\r\nthinking\". Bertrand Russell too made the observation that \"most\r\npeople rather die than think, and they do.\" Hitler capitalized\r\non that observation in Mein Kampf and in constructing the Third\r\nReich. The same is being capitalized in constructing the Global\r\nFourth. I have deconstructed the manufacturing of both consent and\r\ndissent, an engineered product of latter day hectoring hegemons that\r\nis entirely based on that sociological empiricism, in my report\r\n\"Manufacturing Dissent\" available on my website. Here is a\r\nshort extract from Hitler's Mein Kampf:<\/p>\r\n

\r\nBegin\r\nexcerpt <\/b>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nIn\r\njournalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the Press as\r\na 'Great Power' within the State. As a matter of fact its importance\r\nis immense. One cannot easily overestimate it, for the Press\r\ncontinues the work of education even in adult life. Generally,\r\nreaders of the Press can be classified into three groups:<\/p>\r\n

\r\nFirst,\r\nthose who believe everything they read;<\/p>\r\n

\r\nSecond,\r\nthose who no longer believe anything;<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThird,\r\nthose who critically examine what they read and form their judgments\r\naccordingly.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nNumerically,\r\nthe first group is by far the strongest, being composed of the broad\r\nmasses of the people. Intellectually, it forms the simplest portion\r\nof the nation. It cannot be classified according to occupation but\r\nonly into grades of intelligence. Under this category come all those\r\nwho have not been born to think for themselves or who have not learnt\r\nto do so and who, partly through incompetence and partly through\r\nignorance, believe everything that is set before them in print. To\r\nthese we must add that type of lazy individual who, although capable\r\nof thinking for himself out of sheer laziness gratefully absorbs\r\neverything that others had thought over, modestly believing this to\r\nhave been thoroughly done. The influence which the Press has on all\r\nthese people is therefore enormous; for after all they constitute the\r\nbroad masses of a nation. But, somehow they are not in a position or\r\nare not willing personally to sift what is being served up to them;\r\nso that their whole attitude towards daily problems is almost solely\r\nthe result of extraneous influence. All this can be advantageous\r\nwhere public enlightenment is of a serious and truthful character,\r\nbut great harm is done when scoundrels and liars take a hand at this\r\nwork.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe\r\nsecond group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those\r\nwho were formerly in the first group and after a series of bitter\r\ndisappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they see\r\nin print. They hate all newspapers. Either they do not read them at\r\nall or they become exceptionally annoyed at their contents, which\r\nthey hold to be nothing but a congeries of lies and misstatements.\r\nThese people are difficult to handle; for they will always be\r\nsceptical of the truth. Consequently, they are useless for any form\r\nof positive work.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe\r\nthird group is easily the smallest, being composed of real\r\nintellectuals whom natural aptitude and education have taught to\r\nthink for themselves and who in all things try to form their own\r\njudgments, while at the same time carefully sifting what they read.\r\nThey will not read any newspaper without using their own intelligence\r\nto collaborate with that of the writer and naturally this does not\r\nset writers an easy task. Journalists appreciate this type of reader\r\nonly with a certain amount of reservation.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nHence\r\nthe trash that newspapers are capable of serving up is of little\r\ndanger--much less of importance--to the members of the third group of\r\nreaders. In the majority of cases these readers have learnt to regard\r\nevery journalist as fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the\r\ntruth. Most unfortunately, the value of these readers lies in their\r\nintelligence and not in their numerical strength, an unhappy state of\r\naffairs in a period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities\r\nfor everything. Nowadays when the voting papers of the masses are the\r\ndeciding factor; the decision lies in the hands of the numerically\r\nstrongest group; that is to say the first group, the crowd of\r\nsimpletons and the credulous. — Mein Kampf, Adolph Hitler, Vol.\r\n1, Chapter X<\/p>\r\n

\r\nEnd\r\nexcerpt<\/b><\/p>\r\n

\r\nEmpiricism\r\nsuggests that the main harbingers of change throughout history have\r\nalways been chiefs, inspiring leaders who head their own flock who\r\ninvariably follow them blindly. And unless these leaders are patsies\r\nstanding in for the puppetmasters, one presumes that they are the\r\nthird category of people who “have learnt to regard every\r\njournalist as fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the truth.”<\/i>\r\n\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nSuch\r\npeople, often the opinion makers for their own flock, by opening the\r\nbook on the same most significant page simultaneously, and genuinely\r\npursuing the logic which naturally falls out on that page, can surely\r\nengineer a focussed struggle for real efficacy rather than as a\r\ncommodity to soothe one's conscience, or line one's pocketbooks, as\r\nit lamentably is today.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe\r\nunpleasant reality today is that narratives in favor of the\r\nPalestinians showing dead children and dead bodies have become a\r\ncommodity. Such narratives, if cynicism be allowed to air for a\r\nminute (I am sure I will incur the wrath of the pious) often make\r\ntheir authors quite rich and famous. Even win them prizes for their\r\neloquence, and sometimes accolades from the very instruments of those\r\nwhom they seemingly oppose in their dissent. The absurdity of this of\r\ncourse is entirely lost on their gullible flock who in point of fact,\r\ncheer wildly<\/span> for their heroes on such\r\noccasions<\/span> and carry them even more proudly\r\nupon their shoulders. I am sure of course that these heroes donate\r\nevery penny of their windfall proceeds back to the Palestinians, to\r\nthe very victims whose narratives make them wealthy and famous. Here\r\nis Noam Chomsky doing it (\r\nhoover.org\/publications\/hoover-digest\/article\/6222 ). And here is a\r\nPalestinian lawyer in the West Bank doing it for the prize he gladly\r\naccepted for his narrative from the very people who instrumented the\r\ncataclysm upon his peoples which he narrated thereof (\r\nprint-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com\/2008\/05\/letter-toguardian-2008-orwellprize.html\r\n). \r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nI\r\nhope dissent-chiefs like Mr. Alan Hart, because of their vast\r\ncelebrity appeal and consequent flock, might be of the third type\r\nmentioned by Hitler in Mein Kampf, and not just self-policing\r\ncontrolled dissent. That, he, Alan Hart, is able to evaluate what he\r\nreads not based on which of his own heroes might have written it, or\r\nhis own natural proclivity to favor his own a priori worldview as\r\nBertrand Russell effectively described it, but what it's actually\r\nsaying. If Alan is that man, then by reading part-2 and part-3 of my\r\nconfusion series mentioned in this article, he will either be\r\npersuaded by it and will logically open that mighty book of justice\r\non the right page himself. Or, he will refute it.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nShort\r\nof any of that transpiring, to just respond to Alan Hart's largely\r\nrhetorical question embedded<\/span> in the title\r\nof his article, there is no real Palestinian power – people or\r\notherwise. Disenfranchised masses, the wretched of the earth,<\/i>\r\nlike any other mob<\/span>, are only power in the\r\nhands of Machiavelli. This is self-evident. It is even a truism. In\r\nthe case of Palestinians on ground zero, they stand at the threshold\r\nof annihilation<\/span> while those in Diaspora\r\nlook on. The only recourse for Palestinians today to overturn that\r\nstate of affairs they have been brought to, is to clean their own\r\nhouse (\r\nprint-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com\/2011\/07\/palestine-enemy-within-by-zahirebrahim.html\r\n).<\/p>\r\n

\r\nI\r\ncould be wrong about everything in this article – judge for\r\nyourself. Don't let someone else do the thinking for you.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThank\r\nyou for reading the words of a plebeian.<\/p>\r\n

\r\nZahir\r\nEbrahim<\/p>\r\n

\r\nProject\r\nHumanbeingsfirst.org<\/p>\r\n

\r\n

\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n

\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nSource\r\nURL:<\/b> \r\nhttp:\/\/print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com\/2011\/07\/response-to-alan-hart-by-zahir-ebrahim.html<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\r\nMirror\r\nURL:<\/b> \r\nhttp:\/\/bloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com\/2011\/07\/08\/response-to-alan-hart-by-zahir-ebrahim\/<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\r\nPDF\r\nURL:<\/b> \r\nhttp:\/\/humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com\/2011\/07\/response-to-alan-hart-by-zahir-ebrahim2.pdf<\/span><\/p>\r\n

\r\n

\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n<\/div>\n","contact":"Humanbeingsfirst@gmail.com","link":"http:\/\/Humanbeingsfirst.org","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"To just respond to Alan Hart's largely rhetorical question embedded in the title of his article, there is no real Palestinian power ? people or otherwise. Disenfranchised masses, the wretched of the earth, like any other mob, are only power in the hands of Machiavelli. This is self-evident. It is even a truism. In the case of Palestinians on ground zero, they stand at the threshold of annihilation while those in Diaspora look on. The only recourse for Palestinians today to overturn that dismal existential state of affairs they have been brought to, is to clean their own house first of their house negroes and fifth columnists.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2011\/07\/246876.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}