1. Hello madame Namazie
    I am the guy that have put this video of you on YouTube with french subtitle on it, and i must say that i am very happy that you have use it on your blog.

    I became aware of your existence in this intervention of you in the Enemies not allies seminar. you are touching a core problem there when you explain that we have not only to fight Islamism but also the far right that want to highjack the debate in order to attack ordinary Muslims.

    Keep up the good work, you are an inspiration for me.

  2. I haven’t yet fully resolved the contradiction of being anti-imperialist and loathing the clerical regime in Iran at the same time.
    More or less I stand in the following position: condemn foreign imperial threats against Iran, for they are warmongering threats, sanctions, and even (terrorist) attacks, and they only add to the plight of the Iranian masses and reinforce the regime. And condemn the regime persecution of workers, students, women, ethnic minorities, and progressives, whatever their coloration.
    But also, condemn the opposition which coalesce with imperialism, as embracing hostile foreign powers is an act of treason which only makes matters worse and may lead to catastrophic results (see Libya, or Syria now)-the opposition has to sort it out on its own. By now when some leaders of the opposition have stated they would rally the government they oppose against any foreign attack, I think that is the only patriotic stance possible.
    All in all, “neither imperialism nor dictatorship” seems to be a fair position. Yet if there is aggression, the only possible position is to privilege the struggle against imperialism. It is unacceptable that a foreign bully attacks and kills innocent people. The only pro-Iranian position then is to stand by the aggressed.
    Isn’t it enough for the Iranians to endure their obscurantist regime that they should also endure the US/NATO/Israel bombs?

    1. “I haven’t yet fully resolved the contradiction of being anti-imperialist and loathing the clerical regime in Iran at the same time.”

      Maybe instead you could think of it as one set of people dominating another set of people? In Britain we had (have?) one small set of people who dominated and exploiting the rest, They else set about dominating, and exploiting others around the world.

      In Iran, there is a set of people who dominate and exploit the rest.

      I think the situation in Iran is more complex than my black-and-white characterisation but for me at least it handily resolves your contradiction.

        1. Thanks, AC.
          You are right when you say that “the situation in Iran is more complex”, and not only than your characterization but than any we could attempt, including mine.
          If a Libyan template were to be applied, i.e., a set of people opposing the regime which seeks foreign sponsorship and intervention to seize power, the result in Iran would be the replacement of an autochtonous dictatorship by a foreign domination by proxy at best. Incidentally that already happened in Iran when Dr Mussadeq was toppled.

          This may explain that the opposition, unlike in Libya and Syria, has announced that they would rally the present government if the country was attacked. Hence no traitors available like in those countries, and therefore the difficulties of imperialism to engineer a coup in Iran nowadays.

          We’ll have to wait and see. My sympathy goes to the opposition indeed. If Iran is attacked, we’ll have to see what the opposition will do. I hope they will take the sound decision. And the only decent one, in my view, is to oppose the aggressor, and open a parenthesis for domestic antagonisms.

  3. It’s pretty screwed-up stuff, innit? For whatever reason (probably the differing political culture in the U.S.) I usually find myself having to make the other half of this argument instead, trying to explain to xenophobes that the enemy is Islamism, not those individual humans who happen to be Muslim or vaguely “Muslim-looking”. But it really angers me when people, on the left and the right both, act like the only alternative to this virulent hatred of the other is to uncritically embrace Islamism as just another wonderful thread in the vibrant tapestry of human experience, no matter how oppressive its manifestations may be.

    It all reminds me of Howard Tayler’s maxim 29: “The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.”


  4. I concur with most of this, but is it not possible to be of the Right and anti-Sharia/Jihad but not anti-Muslim? As a Western male, I’ve been labeled ‘right-wing racist redneck’ (by Leftists) for saying the exact same things Maryam is saying about Islamism. The problem may be that many on the Left aren’t interested in WHAT is said, but WHO says it. Anyway, good luck with that. I’m a supporter of Freedom & Democracy and therefore opposed to fascism of whatever political (or religious) color.

    1. Yes it is possible to be on the right and anti-Sharia but not anti-Muslim. Though the far-Right is a different story and must be opposed as vehemently as Islamism. They are both far-Right and inhuman.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.