A fun presentation of serious ideas. Click to read. Thanks to Khaadim!
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Mander on Monoculture part IV: The Global Corporate Monster
The Global Corporate Monster by Jerry Mander
The next question, of course, is who is sending us these images? The vast majority of global television imagery, as well as film, books, newspapers, and entertainment imagery, are being sent out to billions of people and now Internet outlets as well, by a tiny number of gigantic global corporations, that are getting bigger and bigger through mergers and consolidations. This process is directly assisted by the rules of the WTO and other global institutions that grease the pathways for their investments and takeovers and mergers.
We're talking about AOL-Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, and maybe three or four others controlling a great majority of the world of broadcast, publishing, and entertainment systems.
Here is a quick briefing on what AOL-Time Warner owns, (besides AOL and Time Warner): Warner Brothers Films and Television, CNN, TNT, TBS, Court TV, HBO, Cartoon Network, CineMax, New Line Films, Time Magazine, Fortune, People, and Sports Illustrated; the Atlanta Hawks and the Atlanta Braves, the Hanna Barbara animation studio, as well as major shares in movie theater companies, dozens of TV stations, satellites, cable systems everywhere on earth including Asia, Europe, Africa, and elsewhere. Disney owns Disneyland, Disney World, Euro Disney, Disney Channel, ABC TV, ABC Radio, ESPN, A&E, Entertainment and the History Channel, Miramax, Touchstone and Walt Disney Pictures, as well as the Anaheim Angels and the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. They have tremendous holdings in TV stations, cable systems, and satellites throughout the world.
Fox News Corporation owns Fox TV Network, Fox News Channel, Twentieth Century Studios, Golf TV Channel, twenty-two US TV stations, 130 daily newspapers, twenty-three magazines, Harper Collins Publishers, and the Los Angeles Dodgers. They have interests in satellite companies, TV stations, and other media throughout Europe, China, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.
The next question, of course, is who is sending us these images? The vast majority of global television imagery, as well as film, books, newspapers, and entertainment imagery, are being sent out to billions of people and now Internet outlets as well, by a tiny number of gigantic global corporations, that are getting bigger and bigger through mergers and consolidations. This process is directly assisted by the rules of the WTO and other global institutions that grease the pathways for their investments and takeovers and mergers.
We're talking about AOL-Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, and maybe three or four others controlling a great majority of the world of broadcast, publishing, and entertainment systems.
Here is a quick briefing on what AOL-Time Warner owns, (besides AOL and Time Warner): Warner Brothers Films and Television, CNN, TNT, TBS, Court TV, HBO, Cartoon Network, CineMax, New Line Films, Time Magazine, Fortune, People, and Sports Illustrated; the Atlanta Hawks and the Atlanta Braves, the Hanna Barbara animation studio, as well as major shares in movie theater companies, dozens of TV stations, satellites, cable systems everywhere on earth including Asia, Europe, Africa, and elsewhere. Disney owns Disneyland, Disney World, Euro Disney, Disney Channel, ABC TV, ABC Radio, ESPN, A&E, Entertainment and the History Channel, Miramax, Touchstone and Walt Disney Pictures, as well as the Anaheim Angels and the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. They have tremendous holdings in TV stations, cable systems, and satellites throughout the world.
Fox News Corporation owns Fox TV Network, Fox News Channel, Twentieth Century Studios, Golf TV Channel, twenty-two US TV stations, 130 daily newspapers, twenty-three magazines, Harper Collins Publishers, and the Los Angeles Dodgers. They have interests in satellite companies, TV stations, and other media throughout Europe, China, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.
Mander on Monoculture part III: Whose Ideal is the Internet, anyway?
Whose Ideal is the Internet, anyway? by Jerry Mander
"Why are we not in front of Disney and Time Warner? Do we love them ourselves? That's something we have to start to look at. It's got to be included in our activism. And that's just television, the old technology. Now we have computers. We have the Internet. Now we are free and involved and interactive and independent. We can network with each other and get organized and mold the world to our wishes. But is the Internet really our technology or is it theirs? Is it really decentralizing? The ultimate politics of the computer revolution are still unclear. But it's surely the oddest of revolutions, since everybody on all sides seems to be in agreement about it.
Everyone thinks it's great, the right and the left, the corporations and the anti-corporate activists, the Al Gores and the George Bushes, the engineers and the artists, all express utopian visions of democracy and empowerment brought by computers and the Internet. But is this right? Is it really a new democracy? Is equity improved?
We know that corporations are pretty excited about this revolution and they keep selling it to us via terms like "empowerment" and "freedom" in millions of dollars worth of ads. A decade ago we saw TV commercials of lines of depressed men in gray suits marching in a dreary world. Computers would set them free. Now the ads show happy monks in Asia, happy children in Africa, happy farmers in Japan, all joining the Internet revolution. Which you had better do, too. Everyone should think different, but all at the same time and with the same machine.
Meanwhile, political leaders advocate wiring up every classroom here and in the rest of the world, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. This despite research that proves that immersing kids in computers doesn't make them happier or smarter or more creative or alive. Maybe the opposite: alienated, lonely, and depressed. Kids don't learn better from computers, they learn best from nature, other kids, live play, teachers. But we're in a technological stampede.
Are computers empowering? Well, yes and no. They serve us well in many ways, even I don't deny that. They help us organize our work, write, edit, and communicate with like-minded people around the world. We can disseminate ideas, build web pages, we can build demonstrations through our e-mails. That's the good news. But what's the rest of the story? There are a couple of points advertisers have left out.
What will they do to our privacy? Make a purchase online and you are automatically adding to huge accessible data banks that know everything about you, your job, your family, your buying habits, credit status, social security number, and habits you might rather nobody knew about. Computers have let loose the greatest invasion of privacy in history and there is a thriving industry selling data about you. The same technology is being used in the workplace to achieve a kind of surveillance impossible until now. Anyone with a clerical job has to worry a lot about having their keystrokes counted and I'm not even mentioning its uses in military or police surveillance or corporate surveillance.
Are we empowered yet?
What about the digital revolution's impact on our environment? They love to describe computers as a "clean" industry, unlike those dreadful smokestack industries, but the real difference is that the junk from computers goes into the ground and water rather than into the air. Computer chip manufacture is responsible for more superfund sites than any other industry, especially in California, and we now realize that silicon chip manufacture requires huge amounts of pure water, exacerbating the global water crisis.
What about e-commerce? The gigantic effort by the United States government to push rules through the global trading system to ban all tariffs and taxes on e-commerce is cynical and undemocratic. It was one of our least-noted victories that we stopped that "no taxes, no tariffs on e-commerce" in Seattle. That would have been a deathblow to an entire class of hands-on, small-scale retailers and artisans, particularly in the Third World. This entire effort amounts to the old planned obsolescence strategy, but this time to entire economic systems, and in many cases, entire ways of life.
The editors of Wired magazine like to say the computer revolution has brought a new political structure to the planet. The symbol of today is no longer the atom, it's the Web, a decentralized form. The new Web structure "elevates the power of the small player" and brings a new techno-spiritualism. Judging by the amount of people ritually engaged with their computers, I would say techno-spiritualism is here. But this idea that the old political center has been wiped out by PCs and e-mail and web pages, and that we're now in a new, computer-enhanced democracy. Well, somebody forgot to tell the transnational corporations that the real power is no longer in the center and that they have lost control.
The news might surprise the two-hundred largest corporations in the world that amount for thirty percent of all economic activity on the planet. They don't seem to have noticed that they lost power. They keep cutting down forests, building huge dams, monopolizing oil, dominating communications, and controlling publications. They know their powers are growing and computers have had a central role in encouraging corporate giantism. In fact, the modern global corporation could not exist at its present scale, operate at the speed that it does, without the global networks to keep thousand-armed enterprises in touch seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, instantaneously moving billions of dollars in assets around the world without the ability of any nation state to regulate it.
So what kind of revolution is this? To use a term like "individual empowerment" to summarize the effects of the computer revolution is badly misjudging the ultimate social, political, and economic outcomes of this revolution. While the Internet and computer surely can help us feel powerful and are terribly useful in very many ways, while we're e-mailing and networking among our virtual communities, global corporations use these same instruments at a scale that makes our use pale by comparison. When they hit their keys they move billions of dollars from banks in Geneva to, say, Sarawak, and a forest gets cut down. Or they buy billions in national currencies, resell them an hour later, causing whole currencies to crash. While we move information, they express power. There's a difference.
And, in conclusion, I'll say there's a homily to remember: it's not just who benefits from this technology, it's who benefits most. It's like dear old George Bush's tax plan. He says everybody benefits — and everybody does. But who benefits most? You may get a hundred-dollar rebate at the end of the year; he and his friends get hundreds of thousands. So it is with the computer revolution. It's not the small player that benefits most, it's the big players. And for the rest of us, it's a net loss. I think that some day we will conclude that global computer networks that we've celebrated for their democratic potential, that we call empowering, are facilitating the greatest centralization of unregulated, unaccountable global corporate power ever.
It's crucial for democracy and for our own effectiveness that we think this through. It's not that we should give up computers, but let's stop calling them empowering."
Mander on Monoculture part II: Toxic TV
Toxic TV
Television is the most important thing in the world that we need to start talking about again. Television is a more efficient medium for cloning global consciousness with a homogenized set of corporate values. I'm going to give you a sense of its scale and impact by repeating some astounding statistics from the United States, but similar patterns can be found all over the world.
In the United States, 99.5% of all homes have television sets. Ninety-five percent of the population watches television every day. The average home has a TV set going more than eight hours per day, even if no one is watching. The average adult viewer watches TV more than four hours a day. The average child age eight to thirteen watches about four hours per day. At age two to four, they watch almost three hours. That's not counting television in school.
These are amazing statistics, when you stop to think about them. Half the population is watching more than four hours per day. How is that even possible? By heavy viewing every night and then all weekend also. People watch more TV in the United States than they do anything else besides sleeping, working or going to school. In the United States, television is the main thing people do. It has replaced community life, family life, culture. It has replaced the environment. It has become the environment that people interact with every day. It has become the culture too, and it's not "popular culture," which sounds somehow democratic. It expresses corporate culture, and that of very few corporations at that. Ours is the first generation to have essentially moved its life inside media, to have largely replaced direct contact with people and nature for simulated, edited, recreated versions. Television is the original virtual reality.
If you were an anthropologist from the Andromeda Galaxy sent to study earth people, and you hovered over the United States chances are you'd report back something like this: They're sitting night after night in dark rooms; they're staring at a light. Their eyes are not moving. They're not thinking. Their brains are in a passive-receptive state — and nonstop imagery is pouring into their brains from thousands of miles away. These images being sent by a very small number of people are of toothpaste and cars and guns and people running around in bathing suits. The whole thing looks like some weird experiment in mind control. And that is what it is.
I was once in the advertising business, for many years, actually. I quit that some time ago, but I learned that people really doubt the invasive power of television imagery. You are smart. You are educated. You can select from among the images that you see. But let's try again. Let me ask you this. Can you get a picture in your brain of Ronald McDonald? The Energizer bunny? How about the Taco Bell Chihuahua? Or Dave, the owner of Wendy's. Or Jerry Springer. Or David Letterman. Or O.J. Simpson.
These images live in your brain. Can you erase them? I don't think so. They're yours forever. Every advertiser knows that images are unstoppable. Your intellect cannot save you from them.
The average television viewer is seeing about 23,000 television commercials every year. One may say "toothpaste," one may say "car," but the intent of every one of those 23,000 messages is identical: to get people to view life as a nonstop stream of commodity satisfactions. Buy something. Do it now. Commodities are life. This message is the same everywhere on earth.
The last time I checked the numbers, about eighty percent of the global population had access to television. Most industrialized countries report similar viewing habits to our own. In Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Greece, Poland, and many countries in Europe and South America, the average person watches three or four hours per day. In Japan and Mexico, they watch more than here. In many parts of the world, the TV they see comes from the United States and other countries in the West, with very few local programs. Even in places on earth where there are no roads–tiny tropical islands, icy tundras of the north, or log cabins–they are sitting night after night watching a bunch of white people in Dallas driving sleek cars, or standing around swimming pools or drinking martinis while plotting ways to do each other in, or Baywatch, the most popular show in the world. Life in Texas, California, and New York is made to seem the ultimate in life's achievements, while local culture, even where it's still extremely vibrant and alive, which is true still for a fair amount of the earth, is made to seem backward and unworthy.
People everywhere are beginning to carry the same images that we do, and are craving the same commodities that we crave, from cars to hair sprays to Barbie dolls to Palm Pilots. TV is turning everyone into everyone else. It's cloning cultures to be like ours. In Brave New World, Huxley envisioned this cloning process via drugs and genetic engineering. We have those too. But TV does nearly as well.
Television is the most important thing in the world that we need to start talking about again. Television is a more efficient medium for cloning global consciousness with a homogenized set of corporate values. I'm going to give you a sense of its scale and impact by repeating some astounding statistics from the United States, but similar patterns can be found all over the world.
In the United States, 99.5% of all homes have television sets. Ninety-five percent of the population watches television every day. The average home has a TV set going more than eight hours per day, even if no one is watching. The average adult viewer watches TV more than four hours a day. The average child age eight to thirteen watches about four hours per day. At age two to four, they watch almost three hours. That's not counting television in school.
These are amazing statistics, when you stop to think about them. Half the population is watching more than four hours per day. How is that even possible? By heavy viewing every night and then all weekend also. People watch more TV in the United States than they do anything else besides sleeping, working or going to school. In the United States, television is the main thing people do. It has replaced community life, family life, culture. It has replaced the environment. It has become the environment that people interact with every day. It has become the culture too, and it's not "popular culture," which sounds somehow democratic. It expresses corporate culture, and that of very few corporations at that. Ours is the first generation to have essentially moved its life inside media, to have largely replaced direct contact with people and nature for simulated, edited, recreated versions. Television is the original virtual reality.
If you were an anthropologist from the Andromeda Galaxy sent to study earth people, and you hovered over the United States chances are you'd report back something like this: They're sitting night after night in dark rooms; they're staring at a light. Their eyes are not moving. They're not thinking. Their brains are in a passive-receptive state — and nonstop imagery is pouring into their brains from thousands of miles away. These images being sent by a very small number of people are of toothpaste and cars and guns and people running around in bathing suits. The whole thing looks like some weird experiment in mind control. And that is what it is.
I was once in the advertising business, for many years, actually. I quit that some time ago, but I learned that people really doubt the invasive power of television imagery. You are smart. You are educated. You can select from among the images that you see. But let's try again. Let me ask you this. Can you get a picture in your brain of Ronald McDonald? The Energizer bunny? How about the Taco Bell Chihuahua? Or Dave, the owner of Wendy's. Or Jerry Springer. Or David Letterman. Or O.J. Simpson.
These images live in your brain. Can you erase them? I don't think so. They're yours forever. Every advertiser knows that images are unstoppable. Your intellect cannot save you from them.
The average television viewer is seeing about 23,000 television commercials every year. One may say "toothpaste," one may say "car," but the intent of every one of those 23,000 messages is identical: to get people to view life as a nonstop stream of commodity satisfactions. Buy something. Do it now. Commodities are life. This message is the same everywhere on earth.
The last time I checked the numbers, about eighty percent of the global population had access to television. Most industrialized countries report similar viewing habits to our own. In Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Greece, Poland, and many countries in Europe and South America, the average person watches three or four hours per day. In Japan and Mexico, they watch more than here. In many parts of the world, the TV they see comes from the United States and other countries in the West, with very few local programs. Even in places on earth where there are no roads–tiny tropical islands, icy tundras of the north, or log cabins–they are sitting night after night watching a bunch of white people in Dallas driving sleek cars, or standing around swimming pools or drinking martinis while plotting ways to do each other in, or Baywatch, the most popular show in the world. Life in Texas, California, and New York is made to seem the ultimate in life's achievements, while local culture, even where it's still extremely vibrant and alive, which is true still for a fair amount of the earth, is made to seem backward and unworthy.
People everywhere are beginning to carry the same images that we do, and are craving the same commodities that we crave, from cars to hair sprays to Barbie dolls to Palm Pilots. TV is turning everyone into everyone else. It's cloning cultures to be like ours. In Brave New World, Huxley envisioned this cloning process via drugs and genetic engineering. We have those too. But TV does nearly as well.
The Homogenization of Global Consciousness: Media, Telecommunications and Culture by Jerry Mander
The Homogenization of Global Consciousness: Media, Telecommunications and Culture by Jerry Mander
excerpt: read the entire very important article here
*******************************************
Jerry Mander is one of the foremost critics of current trends in globalization and technology. He is the program director of the Foundation for Deep Ecology, co-founder of the International Forum on Globalization, author of In the Absence of the Sacred, and co-author of The Case Against the Global Economy.
This article is an excerpt of a lecture given at the Technology & Globalization 2001 conference, cosponsored with Lapis, IFG and the New York Open Center.
One of the main goals of economic globalization is that every place on earth should be more or less like every other place. Whether it's the US, Europe, or once-distant places like Asia, Africa, or South America, all countries are meant to develop the same way. The same franchise fast food, the same films and music, the same jeans, shoes, and cars, the same urban landscapes, the same personal, cultural, and spiritual values. Monoculture. If you've traveled a lot, you've seen that this is rampantly happening already.
Such a model serves the marketing and efficiency needs of the huge global corporations that the system is designed to benefit. Whether cultural, political, or biological, diversity is a direct threat to the efficiency goals of global corporations, which operate on a scale that requires, as far as possible, similar appeals in every market in the world.
Free trade agreements and bureaucracies like the WTO, NAFTA, and the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement, have the specific mandate to create and enforce rules that accelerate the global homogenization process — the economic integration of all countries into the same set of standards and rules created because they work best for corporations — meanwhile preventing any country from regulating corporations to protect local resources, livelihoods, culture, labor rights, or health standards. Such local rules defy central planning and control.
But that is only the external homogenization process. To be truly efficient and successful, they also seek to make over our internal landscape, to remake human beings themselves — our minds, ideas, values, behaviors, and desires — to create a monoculture of humans that's compatible with the redesigned external landscapes so that our minds and values will match the systems and technologies around us, like standard-gauge railways or compatible computers.
This assignment of internal homogenization goes to the global telecommunications system — television, advertising, computers, the Internet, and e-commerce. We could surely add film, radio, music, and education, which are increasingly merging with technology. These instruments speak directly into the minds of people everywhere, imprinting them with a unified pattern of thought, a unified set of imagery and ideas, a single framework of understanding for how life should be lived, thus carrying the homogenization and commodification mandate directly inside the brain. What results is a homogenized mental landscape that nicely matches the franchises, freeways, suburbs, and high-rises.
*******************************************
For more information:
The International Forum on Globalization
1009 General Kennedy Avenue #2
San Francisco, CA 94129
(415) 561-7650
ifg@ifg.org
www.ifg.org
excerpt: read the entire very important article here
*******************************************
Jerry Mander is one of the foremost critics of current trends in globalization and technology. He is the program director of the Foundation for Deep Ecology, co-founder of the International Forum on Globalization, author of In the Absence of the Sacred, and co-author of The Case Against the Global Economy.
This article is an excerpt of a lecture given at the Technology & Globalization 2001 conference, cosponsored with Lapis, IFG and the New York Open Center.
One of the main goals of economic globalization is that every place on earth should be more or less like every other place. Whether it's the US, Europe, or once-distant places like Asia, Africa, or South America, all countries are meant to develop the same way. The same franchise fast food, the same films and music, the same jeans, shoes, and cars, the same urban landscapes, the same personal, cultural, and spiritual values. Monoculture. If you've traveled a lot, you've seen that this is rampantly happening already.
Such a model serves the marketing and efficiency needs of the huge global corporations that the system is designed to benefit. Whether cultural, political, or biological, diversity is a direct threat to the efficiency goals of global corporations, which operate on a scale that requires, as far as possible, similar appeals in every market in the world.
Free trade agreements and bureaucracies like the WTO, NAFTA, and the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement, have the specific mandate to create and enforce rules that accelerate the global homogenization process — the economic integration of all countries into the same set of standards and rules created because they work best for corporations — meanwhile preventing any country from regulating corporations to protect local resources, livelihoods, culture, labor rights, or health standards. Such local rules defy central planning and control.
But that is only the external homogenization process. To be truly efficient and successful, they also seek to make over our internal landscape, to remake human beings themselves — our minds, ideas, values, behaviors, and desires — to create a monoculture of humans that's compatible with the redesigned external landscapes so that our minds and values will match the systems and technologies around us, like standard-gauge railways or compatible computers.
This assignment of internal homogenization goes to the global telecommunications system — television, advertising, computers, the Internet, and e-commerce. We could surely add film, radio, music, and education, which are increasingly merging with technology. These instruments speak directly into the minds of people everywhere, imprinting them with a unified pattern of thought, a unified set of imagery and ideas, a single framework of understanding for how life should be lived, thus carrying the homogenization and commodification mandate directly inside the brain. What results is a homogenized mental landscape that nicely matches the franchises, freeways, suburbs, and high-rises.
*******************************************
For more information:
The International Forum on Globalization
1009 General Kennedy Avenue #2
San Francisco, CA 94129
(415) 561-7650
ifg@ifg.org
www.ifg.org
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Wisdom from Hazrat Maulana Rumi
ہم خدا خواہی و ہم دنیا دوں؟
خیال است و محال است و جنوں
So you want both the world AND God?!
Fantasy, impossibility and madness!
خیال است و محال است و جنوں
So you want both the world AND God?!
Fantasy, impossibility and madness!
more Akber Alahabadi
اپنا رنگ ان سے ملانا چاہیے
آج کل پینا پلانا چاہیے
خوب دکھلا رہے ہیں وہ سبز باغ
ہمیں بھی کوئی گل کھلانا چاہیے
ہاتھ میں کچھ نہیں عزت تو ہے اکبر
ہاتھ اس مس سے ملانا چاہیے
couldn't resist. :)
Great stuff. what can I say
شا باش google! well done.
آج کل پینا پلانا چاہیے
خوب دکھلا رہے ہیں وہ سبز باغ
ہمیں بھی کوئی گل کھلانا چاہیے
ہاتھ میں کچھ نہیں عزت تو ہے اکبر
ہاتھ اس مس سے ملانا چاہیے
couldn't resist. :)
Great stuff. what can I say
شا باش google! well done.
On the critics of Hazrat Shahab sahib
شیخ جی اپنی سی بکتے ہی رہے
وہ تھیٹر میں تھرکتے ہی رہے
جو غبارے تھے وہ سب ا ڑ گۓ
جو ستارے تھے وہ چمکتے ہی رہے
- Akber Alahabadi
[thanks to Naveed for the easy Urdu transliteration site, and Chaiwala bhai for the topic]
Sunday, July 12, 2009
All that is good is from God, all evil is from our own souls
The above is a Qur'anic verse and a basic Sufi meditation.
Whenever one "achieves" something, or has any success in any field, one should immediately realize that all credit is due to God.
It is not our effort at all.
If one's words praise God, or bring someone to the Faith, we should still think: I have not done my Lord justice, I have not praised Him as was His right to be praised.
Hazrat Thanvi RA gave a very good example: when a parent, child in lap, holds the hand of his child and helps him write a word, and then praises the child on how well "he" has written that word.
Thus should we regard our efforts on the Way.
wa billahi taufiq
Whenever one "achieves" something, or has any success in any field, one should immediately realize that all credit is due to God.
It is not our effort at all.
If one's words praise God, or bring someone to the Faith, we should still think: I have not done my Lord justice, I have not praised Him as was His right to be praised.
Hazrat Thanvi RA gave a very good example: when a parent, child in lap, holds the hand of his child and helps him write a word, and then praises the child on how well "he" has written that word.
Thus should we regard our efforts on the Way.
wa billahi taufiq
Revealed: UK's Bloody Afghan Legacy
Warning: this is a disturbing video.
***********************************
After seeing this video, tell me, which father, Muslim or non-Muslim, would not want to take a gun, and find some British troops, or better yet, some British politicians?
Friday, July 10, 2009
US involved in Afghan War Crimes& the US Govt. continues to lie
Please see the Physicians for Human rights website
Perhaps as many as 5000 killed with US complicity.
Full film here: The Convoy of Death
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Love for the Prophet & Auliya is part of faith, Pir Naseeruddin Naseer
Part 2 of the same lecture as below
Love for the Prophet is part of Faith, Pir Naseeruddin Naseer
In 6 parts. Please double click on video above to go to youtube to watch rest. Hazrat Pir Naseeruddin Naseer of Golra Sharif, in the Chishti Nizami and Qadiri lineages.
Shadhilli shuyukh
We disagree with them regarding Sema, but as with the Naqshbandis, their position is also valid. They are still the Friends of God, and our Brothers on the Sufi Path.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Martyr of the Hijab
Shaheed e Hijab, rehmatullah aleha. More here
The real question is the source of the "justification" for these racist ideas. I say put the Zionist Sarkozy on trial, he is responsible.
Sarkozy & his ilk are to blame. It's that sort of thinking- portraying Muslim culture as alien, sinister & dangerous, anti-humanist & therefore somehow less than human - which provides "justification" to these lunatics.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
The False Idol of Democracy
Readers of this blog know well, cyclewala is no fan of democracy. Which is of course simply because the Auliya Allah as a rule are not.
I'd earlier pointed out, all elected leaders put together, from 50 years of world democracy, do not equal ONE Fidel Castro.
In the West, Democracy's a cover for the Financiers, Capitalists who really rule, such as the Bilderberg Group & the families that own the Fed. The elected leader is a mere showman [witness Reagan, Clinton, the parody that was Bush and now pop-star Obama]. It's only this super-rich cabal which can fund the billions needed for a presidential campaign, after all. They put their eggs in both baskets, Republican & Democrat.
We also know what happened to Mr. Kennedy 3 weeks after he tried to bring the dollar back under US Govt. control from the Fed. [Google "Executive Order 11111"]
However, seeing the steady stream, now a deluge, of devotees of Democracy in Pakistan, their ideas and arguments -cliches really- all on loan from the West, is really disappointing.
Muslims should know better.
Pakistani Muslims certainly should know better.
We, who venerate Hazrat Allama Iqbal as our National Poet and an inspired waliullah [man of God] forget he says: avoid democracy, for it's the system where heads are counted, not weighed.
Yet all we hear is Democracy! Democracy!, not Allah! Allah!, or Muhammad! Muhammad! [upon whom be peace].
The bottom line is this: in Pakistan democracy simply means taking the Waderas/Sardars, the most tyrannical, corrupt, rich, decadent, cruel, sadistic group of rapists & villians who ever lived, who are already WAY too powerful, and handing over Legislative power to them as well!
What madness? The Prado class are ALREADY way too powerful!
Yet how do we redress centuries of betrayal and oppression?
By saying to these bandits, here, please sit in our assemblies & take the legislative & administrative power from us too!
For goodness sake, shura baynakum does not mean universal suffrage. Look at how the Companions did it. That is the ONLY valid interpretation of the Qur'anic verse.
May God have mercy on us, and guide us to the right path. May we turn our faces towards the Light of His Noble Prophet for true success here and forever.
Allahuma salle ala Muhammad wa ala aale Muhammad.
*******************************************
PS these last two posts have also served I think to clear our stance: while we agree with Zaid Hamid in some cases, we differ with him in terms of the ongoing military operation, and think that supporting the local militias as in Dir is the far better option....
And while we agree with Imran Khan sahib about the need for an independent judiciary we cannot support Democracy. I think in time he'll come around to this stance too, especially seeing as he names Hazrat Allama Iqbal RA as his mentor.. inshaAllah
I'd earlier pointed out, all elected leaders put together, from 50 years of world democracy, do not equal ONE Fidel Castro.
In the West, Democracy's a cover for the Financiers, Capitalists who really rule, such as the Bilderberg Group & the families that own the Fed. The elected leader is a mere showman [witness Reagan, Clinton, the parody that was Bush and now pop-star Obama]. It's only this super-rich cabal which can fund the billions needed for a presidential campaign, after all. They put their eggs in both baskets, Republican & Democrat.
We also know what happened to Mr. Kennedy 3 weeks after he tried to bring the dollar back under US Govt. control from the Fed. [Google "Executive Order 11111"]
However, seeing the steady stream, now a deluge, of devotees of Democracy in Pakistan, their ideas and arguments -cliches really- all on loan from the West, is really disappointing.
Muslims should know better.
Pakistani Muslims certainly should know better.
We, who venerate Hazrat Allama Iqbal as our National Poet and an inspired waliullah [man of God] forget he says: avoid democracy, for it's the system where heads are counted, not weighed.
Yet all we hear is Democracy! Democracy!, not Allah! Allah!, or Muhammad! Muhammad! [upon whom be peace].
The bottom line is this: in Pakistan democracy simply means taking the Waderas/Sardars, the most tyrannical, corrupt, rich, decadent, cruel, sadistic group of rapists & villians who ever lived, who are already WAY too powerful, and handing over Legislative power to them as well!
What madness? The Prado class are ALREADY way too powerful!
Yet how do we redress centuries of betrayal and oppression?
By saying to these bandits, here, please sit in our assemblies & take the legislative & administrative power from us too!
For goodness sake, shura baynakum does not mean universal suffrage. Look at how the Companions did it. That is the ONLY valid interpretation of the Qur'anic verse.
May God have mercy on us, and guide us to the right path. May we turn our faces towards the Light of His Noble Prophet for true success here and forever.
Allahuma salle ala Muhammad wa ala aale Muhammad.
*******************************************
PS these last two posts have also served I think to clear our stance: while we agree with Zaid Hamid in some cases, we differ with him in terms of the ongoing military operation, and think that supporting the local militias as in Dir is the far better option....
And while we agree with Imran Khan sahib about the need for an independent judiciary we cannot support Democracy. I think in time he'll come around to this stance too, especially seeing as he names Hazrat Allama Iqbal RA as his mentor.. inshaAllah
Where I Stand by Imran Khan
Where I Stand by Imran Khan
MAY 25, 2009. http://pkpolitics.com/2009/05/25/where-i-stand/
"It was Goebbels who came up with the brilliant theory that if the government wanted people to follow its policy, it must first instil fear in them and then slap all dissenters with the unpatriotic card. Anyone, like me, who disagrees with the current indiscriminate military operation is accused of being a Taliban apologist.
Let me state categorically that I have been against military operations since the disaster of East Pakistan. From East Pakistan to the present Swat operation, the political mantra has always been no option but the military. Successive military operations in Balochistan have only added to the sufferings of the Baloch people which nurtured the seeds of their disillusionment with the Pakistani state.
When Bush decided to attack Afghanistan in less than a month after 9/11, I opposed this US policy at every forum including through the print and electronic media. Later, when he ordered the invasion of Iraq, I joined the nearly two million marchers in London opposing the Iraq war. It is noteworthy that at the time over 90% of Americans supported Bushs Iraq invasion. Today, the overwhelming opinion in the US is that Iraq was a disaster. Moreover, the so-called good war in Afghanistan is being lost and its support dwindling.
It is not surprising to see the findings of a Rand Corporation study of the last 40 years of terrorist or asymmetric conflicts which reveal that only 7 % of these conflicts were resolved through military means.
When Musharraf buckled under US pressure and sent the Pakistan Army into Waziristan, I opposed it in Parliament and through the media. Speaking to the editors, Musharraf called me a terrorist without a beard - as if terrorism is the sole domain of bearded folk. When the Pakistan Army was sent into Waziristan there were no militant Taliban in Pakistan. As a result of the army operation the tribal social and political structure was destroyed throughout Fata and Malakand, and the vacuum has been filled by nine major militant Taliban groups and another 20 minor ones.
Again, at the time Musharraf commenced military action in Balochistan I opposed it and was accused of backing anti-state elements. Today, what was a movement for Baloch rights and autonomy within Pakistan has morphed into a Baloch independence movement. On opposing the Lal Masjid operation, some of the self-appointed liberals accused me of backing Islamic fundamentalists. But soon most of the indefatigable crusaders for human rights joined the critics of the Lal Masjid operation. More sobering is the fact that there were 60 suicide attacks in the aftermath of the slaughter of the Lal Masjid inmates and a steep rise in extremism. The Swat flare up is a direct consequence of the Lal Masjid operation.
While discussing my opposition to the current military operation, I must state where I stand politically and ideologically. My political inspiration is derived solely from Quaid-i-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the constitutionalist and democrat who believed in the rule of law above all else. My ideological moorings are firmly rooted in the political and spiritual dimensions of Allama Iqbals exposition of Islam which not only liberates society from bondage but also the human soul from material desires - releasing the enormous God-given human potential.
Above all I am an ardent follower of our Prophets (PBUH) example of inspiring the heart and the intellect rather than forcing ideas through the sword - a far cry from what has been happening in Swat in the name of Islam. So on no count can I possibly either support the un-Islamic acts such as beheadings, flogging of women, or forcing a way of life on others, nor am I an apologist for such people - I am only answerable on this count to my conscience and to my God.
As for my opposition to the Malakand military operation, first and foremost I believe that the military option, if it has to be used should always be as a last resort. Yet in Swat, the military operation was started barely two weeks after the Presidential signing of the Accord without alternative political strategies being given a chance. In my opinion, a national conference of all stakeholders including religious and political particularly those representing Swat should have been called prior to the operation. A delegation from such a conference should have been mandated to visit Swat and talk reason to the militants and report back to the parliament. In other words, every effort should have been made to make the militants abide by the peace deal that was backed by over 80% of the people of Swat and Pakistan according to an IRI survey. All along the political effort, a concerted effort should have been made to gain time to revive civil administration, police, and the paramilitary presence in Swat.
The diehard militants who consistently refused to adhere to peace agreement could have been isolated over time - a key counter-insurgency tactic followed by precise military action to decapacitate the leadership.
Assuming, there was no alternative to the military option, then while it was being planned, arrangements should have been made for the people who were going to be displaced. Sadly, and shamefully, the military operation began suddenly under increased US pressure, timed with Zardaris US visit and with the least concern for the people of the area. It is our almost total subservience to US dictates that has been our Achilles heel.
The unfolding tragedy that is taking place in Swat is mind-boggling. To flush out a few thousand militant Taliban, more than 2 million people have been forced to live in misery in camps not fit for animals in civilized societies. With an equal number trapped in the war zone where they are running out of food and essential items. There are reports that dead bodies are being eaten by stray dogs in the streets of Mingora. Even more disturbing is the use of heavy artillery shelling and bombing from the air alongside helicopter gunships in areas with significant civilian population. Despite a heavy blackout, the news coming from the war zone tell tales of dozens if not hundreds of innocent civilian casualties.
Given the collapse of governance in the country, can we adequately look after so many displaced people - especially as summer temperatures soar? And for how long? The wheat crop has already been lost. If the IDPs cannot return within 2 months, the fruit cash crops will be at risk. Hence how will they sustain themselves for the coming year? Perhaps most dangerous is the possibility of IDPs anger and frustration that besides resulting in riots may also swell the ranks of the militants. For example, twins born in a refugee camp last Friday were named Fazlullah and Sufi Muhammad.
In such a situation, according to the army briefing given to the parliamentarians, there is every possibility of the Taliban resurfacing not just in Malakand Division but elsewhere in the country - possibly the urban centres. Can we afford further spread of terrorism in our cities given the precarious security and fragile economic situation? Military action breeds more militancy.
An army action which has already led to almost 2.5 million displaced countrymen cannot simply be accepted without questions. And, as if we do not already have a crisis, Zardari has declared that the war in Swat is merely the beginning of a wider war which is likely to engulf other parts of the country. It is time to take stock and stop ourselves from committing collective suicide. What needs to be done is the following:
* The military action unfortunately is already underway but there is no political, particularly governance, strategy which is guiding this operation. That should be a first priority so that the military action does not continue in a political vacuum.
* A clear governance and political strategy that allows the IDPs to return following a swift end to military operations is needed. This strategy should be focused on a system of speedy justice through the Nizam-e-Adl and effective civil administration. The writ of the state and the rule of law go together and this has to be ensured if violent challenges to state and government are to be avoided in the future.
* The military action, if at all, should have been extremely limited in scale and targeted with precision to minimise civilian casualties. Tragically this did not happen and my fear is that widespread use of area weapons would only result in greater civilian casualties swelling the ranks of the militants. So the military action needs to be revised to focus more on specific targeting and commando action.
Will any of this happen? Unfortunately in the present mode of the ruling elite, this does not seem likely. Instead, we will see increasing military action in the tribal areas as long as the US is in occupation of Afghanistan. Graham Fuller, the former CIA station chief in Kabul, writing in the International Herald Tribune, states that only the withdrawal of US and Nato boots on the ground will begin to allow the process of near-frantic emotions to subside within Pakistan and for the region to start to cool down. Pakistan is well able to deal with its own Islamists and tribalists under normal circumstances.
In other words, as long as US troops in Afghanistan are perceived to be an occupying force that is anti-Pushtun and anti-Islam, there will be no peace in this region. We are heading in a fatal direction unless we change our strategy and pull of this insane war that is sinking us into chaos. The longer this persists, the deeper we will find ourselves in this quagmire and we will confront a deeply divided society.
Finally, my heart bleeds for the poor soldier confronting his own people turned into misguided and brutalised militants and giving his life for a war wrought on him by a corrupt and decadent ruling elite that cannot see beyond the lure of American dollars that have become as much of a curse for this hapless nation as the criminal extremists in our very midst."
MAY 25, 2009. http://pkpolitics.com/2009/05/25/where-i-stand/
"It was Goebbels who came up with the brilliant theory that if the government wanted people to follow its policy, it must first instil fear in them and then slap all dissenters with the unpatriotic card. Anyone, like me, who disagrees with the current indiscriminate military operation is accused of being a Taliban apologist.
Let me state categorically that I have been against military operations since the disaster of East Pakistan. From East Pakistan to the present Swat operation, the political mantra has always been no option but the military. Successive military operations in Balochistan have only added to the sufferings of the Baloch people which nurtured the seeds of their disillusionment with the Pakistani state.
When Bush decided to attack Afghanistan in less than a month after 9/11, I opposed this US policy at every forum including through the print and electronic media. Later, when he ordered the invasion of Iraq, I joined the nearly two million marchers in London opposing the Iraq war. It is noteworthy that at the time over 90% of Americans supported Bushs Iraq invasion. Today, the overwhelming opinion in the US is that Iraq was a disaster. Moreover, the so-called good war in Afghanistan is being lost and its support dwindling.
It is not surprising to see the findings of a Rand Corporation study of the last 40 years of terrorist or asymmetric conflicts which reveal that only 7 % of these conflicts were resolved through military means.
When Musharraf buckled under US pressure and sent the Pakistan Army into Waziristan, I opposed it in Parliament and through the media. Speaking to the editors, Musharraf called me a terrorist without a beard - as if terrorism is the sole domain of bearded folk. When the Pakistan Army was sent into Waziristan there were no militant Taliban in Pakistan. As a result of the army operation the tribal social and political structure was destroyed throughout Fata and Malakand, and the vacuum has been filled by nine major militant Taliban groups and another 20 minor ones.
Again, at the time Musharraf commenced military action in Balochistan I opposed it and was accused of backing anti-state elements. Today, what was a movement for Baloch rights and autonomy within Pakistan has morphed into a Baloch independence movement. On opposing the Lal Masjid operation, some of the self-appointed liberals accused me of backing Islamic fundamentalists. But soon most of the indefatigable crusaders for human rights joined the critics of the Lal Masjid operation. More sobering is the fact that there were 60 suicide attacks in the aftermath of the slaughter of the Lal Masjid inmates and a steep rise in extremism. The Swat flare up is a direct consequence of the Lal Masjid operation.
While discussing my opposition to the current military operation, I must state where I stand politically and ideologically. My political inspiration is derived solely from Quaid-i-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the constitutionalist and democrat who believed in the rule of law above all else. My ideological moorings are firmly rooted in the political and spiritual dimensions of Allama Iqbals exposition of Islam which not only liberates society from bondage but also the human soul from material desires - releasing the enormous God-given human potential.
Above all I am an ardent follower of our Prophets (PBUH) example of inspiring the heart and the intellect rather than forcing ideas through the sword - a far cry from what has been happening in Swat in the name of Islam. So on no count can I possibly either support the un-Islamic acts such as beheadings, flogging of women, or forcing a way of life on others, nor am I an apologist for such people - I am only answerable on this count to my conscience and to my God.
As for my opposition to the Malakand military operation, first and foremost I believe that the military option, if it has to be used should always be as a last resort. Yet in Swat, the military operation was started barely two weeks after the Presidential signing of the Accord without alternative political strategies being given a chance. In my opinion, a national conference of all stakeholders including religious and political particularly those representing Swat should have been called prior to the operation. A delegation from such a conference should have been mandated to visit Swat and talk reason to the militants and report back to the parliament. In other words, every effort should have been made to make the militants abide by the peace deal that was backed by over 80% of the people of Swat and Pakistan according to an IRI survey. All along the political effort, a concerted effort should have been made to gain time to revive civil administration, police, and the paramilitary presence in Swat.
The diehard militants who consistently refused to adhere to peace agreement could have been isolated over time - a key counter-insurgency tactic followed by precise military action to decapacitate the leadership.
Assuming, there was no alternative to the military option, then while it was being planned, arrangements should have been made for the people who were going to be displaced. Sadly, and shamefully, the military operation began suddenly under increased US pressure, timed with Zardaris US visit and with the least concern for the people of the area. It is our almost total subservience to US dictates that has been our Achilles heel.
The unfolding tragedy that is taking place in Swat is mind-boggling. To flush out a few thousand militant Taliban, more than 2 million people have been forced to live in misery in camps not fit for animals in civilized societies. With an equal number trapped in the war zone where they are running out of food and essential items. There are reports that dead bodies are being eaten by stray dogs in the streets of Mingora. Even more disturbing is the use of heavy artillery shelling and bombing from the air alongside helicopter gunships in areas with significant civilian population. Despite a heavy blackout, the news coming from the war zone tell tales of dozens if not hundreds of innocent civilian casualties.
Given the collapse of governance in the country, can we adequately look after so many displaced people - especially as summer temperatures soar? And for how long? The wheat crop has already been lost. If the IDPs cannot return within 2 months, the fruit cash crops will be at risk. Hence how will they sustain themselves for the coming year? Perhaps most dangerous is the possibility of IDPs anger and frustration that besides resulting in riots may also swell the ranks of the militants. For example, twins born in a refugee camp last Friday were named Fazlullah and Sufi Muhammad.
In such a situation, according to the army briefing given to the parliamentarians, there is every possibility of the Taliban resurfacing not just in Malakand Division but elsewhere in the country - possibly the urban centres. Can we afford further spread of terrorism in our cities given the precarious security and fragile economic situation? Military action breeds more militancy.
An army action which has already led to almost 2.5 million displaced countrymen cannot simply be accepted without questions. And, as if we do not already have a crisis, Zardari has declared that the war in Swat is merely the beginning of a wider war which is likely to engulf other parts of the country. It is time to take stock and stop ourselves from committing collective suicide. What needs to be done is the following:
* The military action unfortunately is already underway but there is no political, particularly governance, strategy which is guiding this operation. That should be a first priority so that the military action does not continue in a political vacuum.
* A clear governance and political strategy that allows the IDPs to return following a swift end to military operations is needed. This strategy should be focused on a system of speedy justice through the Nizam-e-Adl and effective civil administration. The writ of the state and the rule of law go together and this has to be ensured if violent challenges to state and government are to be avoided in the future.
* The military action, if at all, should have been extremely limited in scale and targeted with precision to minimise civilian casualties. Tragically this did not happen and my fear is that widespread use of area weapons would only result in greater civilian casualties swelling the ranks of the militants. So the military action needs to be revised to focus more on specific targeting and commando action.
Will any of this happen? Unfortunately in the present mode of the ruling elite, this does not seem likely. Instead, we will see increasing military action in the tribal areas as long as the US is in occupation of Afghanistan. Graham Fuller, the former CIA station chief in Kabul, writing in the International Herald Tribune, states that only the withdrawal of US and Nato boots on the ground will begin to allow the process of near-frantic emotions to subside within Pakistan and for the region to start to cool down. Pakistan is well able to deal with its own Islamists and tribalists under normal circumstances.
In other words, as long as US troops in Afghanistan are perceived to be an occupying force that is anti-Pushtun and anti-Islam, there will be no peace in this region. We are heading in a fatal direction unless we change our strategy and pull of this insane war that is sinking us into chaos. The longer this persists, the deeper we will find ourselves in this quagmire and we will confront a deeply divided society.
Finally, my heart bleeds for the poor soldier confronting his own people turned into misguided and brutalised militants and giving his life for a war wrought on him by a corrupt and decadent ruling elite that cannot see beyond the lure of American dollars that have become as much of a curse for this hapless nation as the criminal extremists in our very midst."
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Gen. Hameed Gul's interview
2 VERY interesting points here as I'm sure you'll notice.
Regardless of what one thinks of the General's politics or his Salafism. His revelations at 6:37 and 3:28 are worth remembering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)