U.$. role in Iran becomes clearer

On June 26 in the Internet edition, USA Today explained more in depth the U.$. role in funding Iranian dissidents. A phony communist front in the united $tates participated in those dissident actions, as MIM started to stress in 2006. The original U.$. role did not receive much publicity, partly because of a non-existent Left in the United $tates.

Now we learn more details:

“After Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a major expansion of the program in 2006 — Congress eventually approved $66 million — the Iranian government arrested activists and closed down their organizations. Several Iranian dissidents, including former political prisoner Akbar Ganji, denounced the U.S. funding as counterproductive.”(1)

Republican David Denehy and ex-Democrat Joe Lieberman both support the program, which Obama is continuing. Despite this fact, there was no Amerikan Left available to demarcate against CIA and State Department activities.

For a partly functional copy of MIM’s original Iran page, go here.

In coordination with Rice and her new program for wimmin’s rights in Iran, the fake communist “RCP” jumped into action. Ever since Lenin’s day, the main tactic of the imperialists in fighting Islam is to take advantage of cultural differences on sex.

Every day the “Jerusalem Post” takes advantage of fears of Islam. With the death of 27-year-old Neda Agha Soltan in Iran protests, we hear:

“It took the tragic killing of Neda Soltan in Iran for the world to realize that the lives – and deaths – of women are at the center of the struggle for human rights against religious extremism.

“The astounding protests taking place in Iran over the past week, since the fraudulent victory of Islamic extremist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over Mir Hossein Mousavi, is really a story about women.”(2)

This is an example of the commonplace political appropriation tactics of parasitism. Typically, there is no substance to the argument, just a battle over place, questions of what belongs under what rubric. In this example, we are told that the Iranian turmoil is really over the status of wimmin.

The only hard evidence we hear in the whole article that there is some gender contradiction going on to drive the Iranian social movement we see these past few days is as follows:

“Women are the ones arrested in Iran for having an ankle showing or for wearing lipstick. After three such arrests, women go to prison. At the fourth arrest, they get a public lashing.”(2)

No doubt some Iranian wimmin are indeed afraid of their own Muslim culture. Yet there is no proof that the portion of Iranian wimmin so afraid is higher than the portion of Amerikan wimmin afraid of sexual harassment on the street if they show ankle or wear obvious lipstick. There is also no doubt that large portions of wimmin in both Iran and the united $tates are completely comfortable with the culture they display when walking down the street.

Comparing the conditions of wimmin is not the object of the articles in the U.$. and I$raeli media — or indeed, the entire academic establishment of the imperialist countries. Political appropriation is the objective through a simplified code of political correctness taught by lazy tuition-ticket-sellers known as professors.

The idea that Neda is typical of gender repression is also laughable, because there is no proof that the violence in the social movement whether from among the people or by the state is directed more against females. Such political violence directed at females is the exception not the norm in political violence. The article leaves out killings and beatings of males. The reason again is that the substance of the argument is not what matters, just the politeness code that the article writer demonstrates.

In the olden days, we would have said Elana Stokman and like writers went to finishing school to learn proper manners. However, MIM finds emotional arguments about attacks on wimmin such as Neda boorish, because they end up in national chauvinism and warmongering. These emotional sorts of red herrings and lack of comparison arise most frequently in gender-related questions, because politeness codes permit it instead of demanding rigorous internationalism.

We are still lacking a vanguard party of a critical mass of scientists able to put forward concrete arguments about the social road forward. One cannot adopt a gender line spontaneously from the existing code of political correctness and expect to have forward progress.

1. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-25-iran-money_N.htm
2. Elana Stokman, “It’s about the women,” 23June09, Jerusalem Post


%d bloggers like this: