Monthly Archives: December 2009

Open letter to Pervez Hoodbhoy – Why do you hide under the imperial skirt?


Open letter to Pervez Hoodbhoy – Why do you hide under the imperial skirt?


From: Project

Date: Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Subject: Teach me!

To: Pervez Hoodbhoy

Cc: [ ]

Dear PH: The following is my [latest] work which has [once again] challenged the world view of which you are a part. Your contribution to that world view is captured in the following paragraph in item-1:

Why do pious people continually make “World War IV” out to be about Islam and Muslims? They either see it as being a war on Islam and apologetically argue that Islam is benign and that “The detractors of Islam fail to see all this” as Ramzy Baroud does in ‘Muslims Must Not Pay Price for Europe’s Identity Crisis‘; or see it as there being something inherently wrong with an antediluvian Islam which needs to be overhauled to bring it in line with modernity as Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis et. al. do in their doctrinal craftsmanship such as ‘Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror’ and in propagandist statements like it’s “Not a Clash of Civilizations, It’s a Clash between the Civilized World and Barbarians”; or see it as something wrong with the Muslims who need a reformation from their Dark Age as Pakistani native informant par excellence, Pervez Hoodbhoy does in his atheistic zealotry to reform the Muslim mind. In all cases, they calculatingly distract attention from the blatant fact of the matter that hectoring hegemons are engaging in demonization and false-flag operations to “goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers” in their age old quest for Lebensraum, euphemistically called Global Governance.

And that contribution of yours is validated, as well as shown in its proper relative bit position in reference cited in item-2.

  1. Editorial – Another Hegelian Mind Fck: ‘Muslims Must Not Pay Price for Europe’s Identity Crisis’
  2. Minarets blocking the view of the Swiss Alps (PDF)
  3. Letter to Pervez Hoodbhoy in response to his ‘The Confessions of a Groveling Pakistani Native Orientalist’ December 25, 2009 (PDF)

Let me know where I might be wrong. I’d like to be wrong – because otherwise the conclusion is rather bleak for you despite your backing from empire and your untouchability at this time.

You know you are their shill playing noora-kushti. I know it. Looking in the mirror you can’t escape it. Since this is unsettling for me for someone of your stature, even if not for you, I hope I have only mis-perceived. Since you and your published detractors have carved out the WWF forum to stage their own main-event, I have no venue to offer my views publicly – which suits you just fine apparently. I’d say that’s intellectual cowardice, hiding behind the skirt of empire which has entirely book-ended the discourse space including its dissent. Just like Chomsky had himself put it, and which he subsequently himself employed to his own advantage, just as you are doing:

‘This “debate” is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed — or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.’


‘Democratic societies use a different method: they don’t articulate the party line. That’s a mistake. What they do is presuppose it, then encourage vigorous debate within the framework of the party line. This serves two purposes. For one thing it gives the impression of a free and open society because, after all, we have lively debate. It also instills a propaganda line that becomes something you presuppose, like the air you breathe.’


‘The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.’

You are, after all, a Chomsky student, or confrere. You claim the mantle of an intellectual. Yet you shy away from debate outside the “debate” spectrum. Don’t you think you are greater than that? Be a teacher Pervez – teach me. As Socrates may perhaps have asked of his own teacher, just as he asked of the people about to administer him the Hemlock:

‘Agree with me if I seem to you to speak the truth; or, if not, withstand me might and main that I may not deceive you as well as myself in my desire, and like the bee leave my sting in you before I die. And now let us proceed.’

And I cc a few who apparently hold you in very high esteem. They share with you one thing – their silence on modernity.

Best Regards,

Zahir Ebrahim

only a plebe


– ### –

Related: Case Studies in Social Engineering: Manufacturing Consent and Dissent – The Master Social Science

Related: Tutorial: The Hegelian Dialectics of Deception Today’s Focus: Anatomy of Modern Lies, Senseless Warfare, Merchants of Death – Educate Yourself

Related: Letter to Editor: A surfeit of Pakistani geniuses or simply ‘native informants’? April 06, 2009

Related: Letter to Editor: Three Points of Agreement with the Distinguished Physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy March 25, 2009

Source URL:

Source URL PDF:

Open letter to Pervez Hoodbhoy – Why do you hide under the imperial skirt? By Zahir Ebrahim