BBC - Adam Curtis Blog - THE BABY AND THE BAATH WATER PDF

BBC - Adam Curtis Blog: THE BABY AND THE BAATH WATER
Cookies on the We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our
website.
If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume
BBC website that you are happy to receive all cookies on the BBC website. However, Continue
if you would like to, you can change your cookie settings at any time.
Find out more
BBC iD News Sport Weather iPlayer TV Radio More Search

This page has been archived and is no longer updated.
Find out more about page archiving.
Previous |
Main
| Next Jump to more content from this blog
THE BABY AND THE BAATH WATER About this blog
Post categories: Back Stories Share The stories

Adam Curtis | 18:00 UK time, Thursday, 16 June 2011
Kabul: City Number One
How Much Do You Know?
What is happening in Syria feels like one of the last gasps of the age of the military
Election
dictators. An old way of running the world is still desperately trying to cling to power, but
Kinshasa: City Number Two
the underlying feeling in the west is that somehow Assad's archaic and cruel military rule
It Felt Like A Kiss
will
inevitably collapse and Syrians will move forward into a democratic age.
Back Stories
That may, or may not, happen, but what is extraordinary is that we have been here before.
Adam Curtis is a documentary film
Between 1947 and 1949 an odd group of idealists and hard realists in the American
maker, whose work includes The Power
government set out to intervene in Syria. Their aim was to liberate the Syrian people from
of Nightmares, The Century of the Self,
a corrupt autocratic elite - and allow true democracy to flourish. They did this because they
The Mayfair Set, Pandora's Box, The Trap
were convinced that "the Syrian people are naturally democratic" and that all that was
and The Living Dead.
neccessary was to get rid of the elites - and a new world of "peace and progress" would
inevitably emerge. Adam writes: "This is a website
expressing my personal views through
What resulted was a disaster, and the consequences of that disaster then led, through a
a selection of opinionated observations
weird series of bloody twists and turns, to the rise
to power of the Assad family and
and arguments. Ill be including stories I
thewidescale repressionin Syriatoday.
like, ideas I find fascinating, work in
I thought I would tell that story. progress and a selection of material from
the BBC archives."
For the latest updates across BBC blogs,

visit the Blogs homepage.
Subscribe to Adam Curtis Blog
You can stay up to date with Adam Curtis

Blog via these feeds.
Adam Curtis Blog Feed (RSS)

Adam Curtis Blog Feed (ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find

our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
See also
Punchdrunk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/06/the_baby_and_the_baath_water.html[12/12/2015 15:26:51]
Manchester International Festival
In 1968 a CIA agent called Miles Copeland wrote a book called 'The Game of Nations' that
The BBC is not responsible for the content of
revealed what went on in 1947. Back then Copeland was part of a mangement consulting external websites.
team in Washington who were working out how America should contain the threat of
communism in the Middle East, now the old European Empires had gone. This was before
the CIA existed, and Copeland describes how they got together an odd group of diplomats,
secret agents left over from the war, advertising men from Madison Avenue, and "pipe-
smoking owls" (which is what intellectuals were called in those days).
Copeland describes an impassioned lecturer telling this group that their aim should be to
change the leadership in the countries in the Middle East:
"Politicians in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt seem to have been elected into power, but
what elections! The winners were all candidates of foreign powers, old land-owners who tell
their tenants and villagers how to vote, or rich crooks who can buy their votes. But peoples
of these countries are intelligent, and they have a natural bent for politics. If there is a part
of the world which is crying for the democratic process the Arab World is it."
They decided to start with Syria.
Compared to what was to come, it was all very sweet and innocent. Elections were due in
Syria in 1947, and the Americans decided to give "a discreet nudge here and there". This
involved warning landowners, employers, ward bosses and police chiefs not to intimidate
the voters. The American oil companies were paid to put up big posters telling the Syrians
to "vote for the candidate of your choice" (apparently this baffled all the Syrians because
the posters didn't mention any candidates by name). Hundreds of taxis were hired to take
voters to the polls free of charge. And the Americans brought in automatic, tamper-proof
voting machines.
It didn't go as expected. The landowners and other elites ignored all

the warnings and
intimidated everyone. There were massive gun fights and scores of people were killed. The
taxi-drivers bonded together and sold themselves to different candidates - promising to
make their passengers vote the "right" way. The voting machines didn't work properly
because of irregularities in the electric current, or were sabotaged. Two did work - but the
losing candidates refused to accept the verdict of "imperialist technology" - and got
recounts by hand, which strangely made them win.
And worst of all, most of the pro-American candidates defected to other foreign powers.
The Americans had nobly refused to give them any money - so the Russians, the French
and the British stepped in and bribed them - and the candidates changed their allegiances.
The Americans were upset. So they decided they would have to go further. The chief
diplomat in Damascus was called James Keeley. The solution he said was to find a way of
"quarantining" the Syrians from the corrupting forces that had wrecked the election so
they would become
more self-confident. More "naturally democratic". Here is a picture of

James Keeley.
And the way to create this "quarantine" was by engineering a military

coup. According to
Copeland, Keeley believed that America should get rid of the present elected leaders, bring
in a short period of dictatorship which would protect the Syrian people and thus allow them
to develop self-confidence and stronger personalities, and within a few years a real
independent democracy would emerge.
And that is whatthe Americansdid. In 1949 a "Political Action Team" was set up thatwent
and made friends with the head of
the Syrian army, Husni al-Za'im. Copeland was part of
the team and he is completely open about what they did.
"The political action team suggested to Za'im the idea of a coup d'etat, advised him how to
go about it, guided him through the intricate
preparations in laying the groundwork for
it...Za'im was 'the American boy'. "
Here is a picture of the American boy - General Za'im and his limousine.
And Za'im promised the Americans he would throw all the corrupt politicians in jail, reform
the country, recognise the new state of Israel, and then bring in proper democracy. All the
Americans were convinced that it was a brilliant plan - except for one man, a young

political officer called Deane Hinton. Copeland describes a moment when they were out in
Damascus planning the coup when Hinton turned to the rest of the group and said:
"I want to go on record as saying that this is the stupidest, most irresponsible action a
diplomatic mission like ours could get itself involved in, and that we've started a series of
these things that
will never end."
Deane was promptly kicked out of the group and ostracised. The coup happened in March
1949. It was the first post-war military coup in the Middle East. It was a great success and
the American celebrated "opening
the door to Peace and Progress"
But then Za'im immediately went back on all his promises and turned into a violent tyrant.
He got so bad that five months later a group of his subordinates surrounded his house and
shot him to bits. And then they mounted another violent coup, this time with no promises.
As Copeland noted - Hinton had been right. The Americans had started something - they
had "opened the door to the Dark Ages" in Syria.
Here is Copeland interviewed in 1969. He is reflecting ruefully on the disaster they had
created in Syria. His is the voice of a generation
of Americans who had tried to intervene to
bring democracy to the Middle East - not just in Syria but later in Iran and in Nasser's
Egypt.
The "Game" he refers to is a management game-playing exercise the CIA did in the
1950s when planning the interventions. It's aim was to predict how all the "players" in the
country would behave.
As a result Syria was torn apart by miltary coups throughout the early 1950s. Then in 1954
the parliamentary system was restored. The politicians - and most of the Syrian people -
were now terrified of America, not just because of the interventions and the coup, but also
because of their support for Israel. In response the new government turned to the Soviet
Union for economic aid and friendship.
Here is a fascinating film made in 1957. The BBC reporter, Woodrow Wyatt, goes to Syria
with the aim of proving that everyone there is a communist. But repeatedly they tell him
that this is not true. Both students and millionaire businessmen insist they are not a Soviet
satellite, that they like capitalism. They just fear America because of its plots - and they
have turned to the Soviets as a message to America.
They also see Israel as America's
agent.
Just before Woodrow Wyatt arrived the Syrians had uncovered yet another CIA plot to
overthrow the government. Three CIA men had been expelled, and even Wyatt has to
admit in the commentary that the evidence for the plot is strong.
In fact it was true. The Americans had been planning another military
coup, code-named
Operation Wappen. The CIA man in charge was called Howard "Rocky" Stone, and he
terrified the Syrians because he always stared intensely at them. But Stone did this
because he was almost completely deaf - and he was trying to read their lips.
But while all the Syrians interviewed in the film dislike America, they also all have a hero.
He is President Nasser of Egypt. What inspires them is Nasser's dream of a united Arab
world that would be strong enough to challenge America and the western powers.
But Syria also had its own fast-growing version of Nasser's Pan-Arabism - and it was even
more epic in its vision. It was called the Baath party. It had been started by a Syrian
Christian called
Michel Aflaq - and Aflaq's dream was to rouse the Arabs from what he

considered a living death. To free them from the shackles of tribalism, sectarianism, the
oppression of women and the cruel autocracies of landowners. All these made the Arabs
feel inferior - and that was then exploited by the Western empires, and now by America. In
the process they had turned the Arab people into powerless zombies.
Here are some pictures of Aflaq.
Baath meant rebirth - and that was what Aflaq wanted to bring about. His aim was freedom
not just from America and the old empires, but he also wanted to bring about personal
liberation from mental and social chains that were holding the Arabs back. It was an
extraordinary fusion of Arab nationalism, grand ideas from the French Revolution, and
modern socialist theories which wanted to transcend the deep sectarian divisions in the
Arab world.
Then, in 1958, Syria and Egypt merged as countries to become the United Arab Republic,
led by President Nasser. Aflaq believed that is was the beginning of a united Arab world
and under pressure from Nasser he agreed to dissolve the Baath party as a separate
entity. But he and the other Baathists quickly discovered that Nasser wanted to use the

opportunity to destroy the Baath party because he saw it as a rival to his pan-Arab vision.
Here is part of a film shot in Syria in 1961 at the very moment when the UAR was falling
apart. It records the growing hatred of Nasser among
the Syrians. I particularly like the
posters of American Hollywood starlets - with Nasser's face stuck on them. He's just as bad
as the Americans now.
Faced with growing chaos in Syria, five young Baath party members who were also army
officers decided they would save the country. They set up a secret committee within the
army and planned to bring about the Baath vision in Syria. They would create a united
Arab world where Nasser had failed. One of them was a young Hafez al-Assad.
And the Baath idea was spreading. At the same time, a group of Baathists in Iraq were
plotting to bring down the nationalist ruler of the country - General Qassim. And in
February 1963 they struck first. But the coup they mounted wasn't all that it seemed - and
the reason was
that yet again the Americans had got involved.
The Baath party had emerged and risen to popularity precisely because
it promised to
liberate the Arab people from foreign intervention and control. But in the strange twists
and turns of Middle Eastern power struggles the Baath in Iraq ended up coming to power
in a coup that was in large part organised and funded by the CIA. And one of the CIA's
"assets" in that coup was a lowly member of the conspiracy - Saddam Hussein.
The reason the Americans got involved was simple. General Qassim depended on the Iraqi
communists for power. The Baath party hated the communists because they saw
International Marxism as their biggest rival
to their dream of uniting the Arab world. And
the CIA wanted to get rid
of the communists in Iraq. So Bingo - why not help the Baath
party? And
that included giving them a list of the communists in Iraq that they should kill.
(The elimination list was given to them by a Time Magazine correspondent who was really
a CIA agent - and it was out of date)
This is a photograph ofa group ofsome of theIraqi Baathistsof that time- including a
young Saddam.
Here is a section from the film I made called It Felt Like a Kiss. It
tells the story of
Saddam's involvement in the Baath-CIA coup of 1963 set to music and images, and also
sets it in the wider context of a growing uncertainty within America itself at the time.
But the Syrian Baathists weren't going to be outclassed. A month later they mounted their
coup, and this time without
the CIA's help. Hafez al-Assad was one of the leaders.
Everything went fine until Assad arrived outside one of Syria's main airbases to take it
over. The officers refused to let him in because they said he wasn't really a Baathist, he
was a Nasserist. Assad stood for hours shouting "I'm not a Nasserist, I'm a Baathist" at the
airmen. The revolution was held up as they argued over the niceties of Pan-Arab theory.
But it succeeded. And it now looked as if the Baath vision might really spread across the
Arab world. Nasser was furious - he used everyone's favourite political insult. He called
them "fascists".
Here is a comedy sketch the BBC programme That Was The Week That Was didtwo
daysafter the 1963 coup in Syria. It's not very funny, but it is interesting because of the
prism through which it sees the coup. The "joke" is that the coup will only happen when
the western media arrive. The plotters are waiting for the Panorama reporter to turn
up
because they know that coup will not be real until it is reported by
the west.
It is an early example of the techno-orientalism that is being repeated today in the media's
firm belief that it is the western social media networks that made possible the rebellions in
Tunisia and Egypt.
The dream of Baathism was to overcome the sectarianism

that had always riven the Arab
world, to create a secular society in which everyone was included. But now, as Assad and
his four friends on the secret committee took power, that sectarianism rose up to possess

and distort their revolution.
Of the five conspirators, three of them - including Assad - came from

the Alawite sect. They
were a Shia sect who lived in the western mountains of Syria. The two others were Ismailis
- another branch of Shia Islam. Traditionally power in Syria had resided with the old Sunni

landowning and merchant class of the plains who also made up the bulk of
the population.
The seizing of power by Assad and his conspirators was a
dramatic reversal. It was the
triumph of a low-class peasant population
and lower middle class urbanites against the old
metropolitan elites. And the Sunnis hated it.
The hatred went deep because when the French ruled the country they had practiced a
programme of divide and rule which deliberately fomented
and exaggerated the sectarian
divisions in the country. Faced with this, Assad began to follow a logic that would destroy
the very core of Michel Aflaq's dream of a united Arab world. Assad wasn't a sectarian, but
he moved through the army and the institutions of state ruthlessly installing those he
trusted into positions of power - while removing, often bloodily, Sunnis, Druze and other
members of the old elite Syrian class. And many of thosehe installed were Alawites, like
him.
In the processAssad also came into conflict with the other four
members of the secret
committee behind the revolution. So he destroyed them too. Until, by 1969, there were
only two men left - Assad and an austere General called Salah Jadid. Assad couldn't get rid
of Jadid because he was protected by the ruthless Bureau of National Security. So
Assad
sent troops to the one petrol station where all the security bureau jeeps refuelled - and
grabbed them one by one. When the head of the bureau realised that he was defeated, he
rang one of Assad's allies and then shot himself so that his enemy could hear the gunshot.
Here is some footage - beginning with the celebration from the early days of the revolution
among the urban poor - as the Baath party free them from the old bosses. Followed by
images of the strange Baath state that Assad then created in Syria. It was centred round
countless images of Assad as a the heroic leader of the nation. It is very odd because,

unlike Saddam who was doing the same sort of thing in Iraq, in every image and statue
Assad looks like a middle manager.
Assadbelieved that this ruthless exercise of power was necessary because of the deep
sectarian divisions. It was a strange echo of the American diplomat in 1949 who believed
that a military coup was needed to "quarantine" the Syrian people - because Assad
believed that the naked exercise of power by an elite was necessary to enforce a genuinely
plural society. To quarantine the Syrians from their sectarian past.
And many Syrians greeted it with a sigh of relief after the relentless chaos and violence of
the past twenty years. They welcomed the stable state Assad created for fear of the
alternative - and as a result he became popular with millions of Syrians.
Butwhat he had also created was a repressive state that resorted to violence and fear to
maintain its rule.
Here are some unedited rushes - shot in 1977 - of the city of Hama. They are labelled
Stockshots in the BBC archive. But since 1982 they have become more than that. They are
one of the few film records that remain of a city that was practically destroyed by Assad as
he struggled
to put down an uprising by the disgruntled Sunnis, led by the Muslim

Brotherhood, who dominated the town. The accepted estimate is that Assad's security
forces killed 10,000 people - and bulldozed many of the
buildings - to try and wipe away
yet more of his enemies.
But he wasn't successfull, Hama is yet again one of the main centres of the revolt against
Assad's son's regime.
Nobody knows what is going to happen in Syria today. The optimistic view is that a new
generation is emerging who really want
a proper representative democracy in which all
groups can negotiate with each other without violence. The pessimistic view is that those

sectarian divisions, encouraged by the French - and then incubated further by the Assad
family - will re-emerge. In truth no-one knows.
But there is a terrible naivety in the West's view of the ongoing revolt in Syria. It forgets its
own history and the role itplayed inhelping createthe present situation.
Back in the 1950s America set out to create democracy in Syria, but it led to disaster. It
was by no means the only factor that led to the violence and horror of the Assad
dictatorship, but its unforeseen consequences played an important role in shaping the
feverish paranoia in Syria in the late 1950s - which helped the Baath party come to power.
And while the Western powers no longer remember this history, the Syrians surely do.
The man who had originally created the Baath vision, Michel Aflaq, was forced into exile in
Iraq. He died in 1989 - a sad man, convinced that Assad had destroyed his dream of a
united, confident Arab world.
The Iraqi Baaths hated the Syrian Baaths and theyembraced the exiled Aflaq. Afterhe died
they built a grand mausoleum for him in
Bagdhad. Here is a photo of what had happened
to the mausoleum by 2006.
It had been turned into a gym for the invadingAmerican
troops. You can see Aflaq's tomb behind the weights and the table football.
One idea of personal transformation had been replaced by another.
Bookmark with:
del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit
- What's this?
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
1. At 22:32 16th Jun 2011, mcjhn1 wrote:
have to admire the American armies respect for ideas, bet there were a few steroid
fuelled fights over that Fuball table
complain about this comment
2. At 23:32 16th Jun 2011, Moor Larkin wrote:
@ bet there were a few steroid fuelled fights over that Fuball table
If
it all got too violent the players would be sent for an early baath I suppose. One
difference I've noticed about Syria is that there are no British tourist revolutionaries
being interviewed off the streets. The Egyptian period was almost a running farce here
with one guy being interviewed on our Newsnight current affairs show, explaining that
the night before he'd been *in the square* and tomorrow night he was flying back and
would be back *in the square* again by the day after. Never mind the CIA, whatever
happened to the Peace Corps?
3. At 23:50 16th Jun 2011, egbert_the_atheist wrote:
The
politics of power is oh so predictable. Ideals can only flourish when they're raised
above all things, including the sacred. This is known in the rational world as a liberal
constitution or bill of rights. The problem with the Arab world is that rational ideals are
not raised above
the sacred, and the consequences are that such ideals will simply not

flourish long term. Non-rational or anti-liberal ideals are just as dangerous, such as in
Fascism or Communism.
The reason why so-called 'civilized' western nations behaved like barbarians abroad, is
because there was no international protection, or at least no forceful international
constitutional authority, and so nations were playing the old game of power politics. And
power politics only breeds power politics, you cannot raise beautiful ideals above the
sacred by using the old irrational game of force.
4. At 16:46 17th Jun 2011, FoxyN wrote:
"...there
is a terrible naivety in the West's view of the ongoing revolt in Syria. It forgets
its own history and the role it played in helping create the present situation."
For Syria, read Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, the Congo, the Rwandan
genocide etc etc. One of the indispensable aspects of Adam's work is to remind us of
the West's forgotten colonial and neo-imperialist history in Africa and the Middle East,
and its continuing influence on recent and current events. (On our own unedifying
foreign policy in the 20th century, see Mark Curtis's Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in
the World).
Miles Copeland, by the way, was the father of Stewart Copeland, drummer with the
Police (I'm sure Adam could make something of that by way of musical
accompaniment
to relevant footage - not to mention the irony of the coincidental link with Sting's
campaigning on human rights etc).
5. At 13:45 18th Jun 2011, mididoctors wrote:
It's like Hip hop History
6. At 14:21 18th Jun 2011, G wrote:
Once
again thank you for informing me in a way that would not have happened by other
means. No other media source talks about this stuff, and not everyone can spend their
days doing first-hand historical research. I only knew about the Hama masacre already
because a friend has traveled extensively in the Middle East and told me about it,
having heard the story direct from the locals.
7. At 16:31 18th Jun 2011, Felim wrote:
This
is a really great post Adam very engaging and a supreme example
of content
curation. I hope the BBC encourages more people to breathe new life into its archives in
this manner.
8. At 17:00 18th Jun 2011, blatny93 wrote:
Adam
Curtis, you are what the BBC was made for! I wish someone could do what
you do
but Hegels philosophy - you are the most stimulating creater since Clark's 'Civilization'
or when A.J.P.Taylor 'talked to screen' (in
my youth) and Dennis Potters 'Singing
Detective'. Just when you think the BBC has lost all it's balls someone comes along!
Thankyou - but, of course, the patronising beaurocracy put you on BBC 2, which no one
watches!? I watched your 'Kiss' experiment - how to tell a story purely visually - I think
it was succesful but bleak - at least, your authorial
voice, in your other essays, seem to
show the slight glimmer of a path out. I know, from my own experience, we aren't
merely stupid - we love, we see each other, even if it is below the waves and we've
stopped breathing. I love you, Adam. You give me hope.
9. At 22:08 19th Jun 2011, johnl wrote:
One of your best posts so far, Adam. My friends and I really enjoyed it.
The same day I read it, I came across a news article from your colleague, Wyre Davis:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13800493
I
thought it was a good present-day example of the black and white fairy-tale that we
still keep trying to apply to complicated situations in countries we know nothing about.
The convenient story of the self-immolating martyr turned out to be much more
confusing than we would have wanted.
10. At 19:51 21st Jun 2011, Cate wrote:
I
would like to obtain a copy of "The Way of All Flesh" to screen to students who will be
reading "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks". I would need a NTSC version as I am in
the United States. Is it possible to obtain a copy of this documentary here with
screening rights? If so,
can you tell me where I can purchase a copy, please? Thank
you.
11. At 13:36 22nd Jun 2011, avishalom wrote:
deconstructing
Curtis (and the modern narrative): it's all a blame game, and the badies
are always at the top: foreigners, elites, and abstract notions of "divisions,
sectarianism". It creates the illusion that somehow Syria
could have avoided these
issues, if only "we" hadn't been ignorant.
"The
hatred went deep because when the French ruled the country they had practiced a
programme of divide and rule which deliberately fomented and
exaggerated the
sectarian divisions in the country "
"The pessimistic view is that those sectarian divisions, encouraged by the French"
Please
back this up. Most modern readers will be fascinated by some concrete evidence
that the French (or British) were this demented. We all know the roman maxim of
Divide and Conquer, but it's a maxim. Where is the beef? Is there a Divide and Rule?
What possible benefit from the French to rule a divided country, and encourage hatred.
Isnt' rule, all about consolidation?? So I want more than blame statements.
Second. There is a gross inconsistency in the narrative. Miles Copeland aside, the
mention of Russian, and French (and even West German jounalists and the imporance
of the BBC) are constantly mentioned. Isn't it absolutely reasonable, that while Nasser
gets Russian Migs and T34s, that a geostrategic gain is made by the USSR. And you say
"Russian" and forget it was the USSR. And no matter how much you sugar-coat it, you
have the USSR (not Russia, very different polities) in the heart of the Middle East,
backing Nasser in his UAR project! Americans are naive? Or were we
we supposed to
play dead, and let everyone else tell Syria what to do? Where did this anti-American
rhetoric come from anyway. Contemporay Arab
countries had very favorable views of
America, and suddenly in Syria, America is associated with Israel and Colonialism, this
early!? While most of Israel was Kibbutzim and the Labor Party? While America objected

to French nuclear weapon transfers to Israel!? When Israeli Labor was still reaching out
to Yugoslavia and Hungary, and other communist and socialist countries?
The only way to explain such anti-american sentiment is Soviet anti-colonial

propaganda. Most Syrian elite were pro-Western and pro-American, and knew damn
well that they were between a
rock and a hard-place. And they spoke to the people in
the schitzophrenic language that a place like Syria can only speak!
Are
we supposed to watch "documnetary" images of Arabs saying they are not

communists but have a million dollars, speak fluent english, but put a communist i
[the above got cut off]
put a communist in the parliament?
How much can one blame American naivete by having Copeland talk about games? As if
the word games reveals American stupidity?
One
should not downplay the Soviet effort, even if some US backed millionaire put a
Commie into the Syrian parliament. The Soviet fingerprints are all over the place. The
facts on the ground remain that
the Soviets were becoming Syria's biggest trade
parnetr and the sudden inexplicable anti-American sentiment surely came from their
coffers.
The
fall from favor of Nasser. Did it just happen spontaneously? WAsn't Jordan threatend
by this? Didnd't Faisal, after all propose an Iraqi-Jordanian pact to balance teh UAR? So
where did this sudden change
of heart happen, in relation to Nasser?
Third. Who did support Assad? It's hard to believe that two esoteric and cryptical groups
such as the Alawais and Ismailis, were NOT networking or receiging backing from
someone. What, suddenly out of nowhere, a real home grown revolution? Since that is
what the narrative above implies, that we have
a genuine people's revolution. And its
obviously a gross simplification, since the majority of the people who were Sunni, didn't

identify with Assad. Or did they?
Look, I don't want to conclude and say "let's blame the Syrian people," but I also dont'
want to conclude let's blame the usual culprits:
the Colonialists. As
if they only acted out of malice, and NEVER had a hard situation on

their hands. As if they defined borders ARBITRARILY. And as if they somehow didn't
already inherit a totally screwed up area.
The Elites. As if they always knew what to do.
The Americans. As if they were some ignorant children.
Sectarians/Divisions: as if they didn't represent real people.
The
reality of Syria has been very difficult from the time Islam took over.
The notion that
Jews and Christians, who were a majority, and came to constitute a minority, had it
easy, is jejune. The entire reason why there are Alawites and Ismaili's is becuase these
were forced conversions, and according to the New Encyclopedia of Islam, did not

intend to remain Muslims. In the last 15 years, Saudi Arabia has funded the most
aggressive mosque building proram on earth, introducing 10 mosques to villages which
previously had one. This conquest, and the flood of refugees from neighboring Iraq, is a
powderkeg waiting to explode. It does not help, that reasonably credible information on
Saudi
plans backed by the US to destabilise the Assad
wow. my message got cut up! so the conclusions vanished into thin air!
Ok, real quick then.
Nasser
was not an Islamist, but he was close to Erdogan's vision of today. Islam still
played a leading role. The Ba'ath party was a reasonable historic alternative and
assured both Iraq and Syria SOME industry (contrast with other Arab states).
Islam has been the heart of the regions problem since its arrival on the scened. It is
responsible for the sectarianism. Islam never flourished wherever it was established. It
only flourished when it was a minority ruling over non-Muslims and exploiting their
labour and crafts. As their numbers dwindled under persecution and exploitation
(converted to Islam, annihilated) Islam showed itself for the unproductive and retarding
force of history which it is exposed as today.
14. At 15:47 23rd Jun 2011, egbert_the_atheist wrote:
avishalom's
analysis does tend to deconstruct Curtis. Who are the bad guys? The ones at
the top of course. Whether it's the state, or the rich or mad scientists. Those at the
bottom are the good guys, although that isn't really true because they commit
genocides or execute members of the UN. Hence Oh Dearism.
That doesn't fit the left narrative so well. The good guys are neither the top nor the
bottom, hence the left narrative has come to an end, powerless and pessimistic, and the
liberal
dream has turned into a nightmare.
Oh but there is no end to it!

And so we must keep putting faith in ordinary people and
return again to the old narrative of the bad guys at the top, oh but those guys at the
bottom, with their playstations, they're also bad, and they are powerless to do anything
about genocides in the Arab world.
And so around and around we go, pointing out the bad guys are everyone, and everyone
is powerless to do anything, because they're living in a nightmare.
This is the pessimism of the left.
But liberalism is still about freedom, albeit now we liberals find ourselves
in a world that
is no longer rational. Reforms and progress can only take place when things are running
rationally, where markets are regulated, where bad guys are taken out of society,
where secularism rules over religion.
And so it is up to rational liberals to once

again seize power and reform the system.
There is no need for complete pessimism, however the old narratives and myths need
to be put to rest, and new ones erected to replace them.
15. At 12:45 24th Jun 2011, emma d wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
16. At 21:43 29th Jun 2011, mididoctors wrote:
avishalom wrote: "deconstructing Curtis etc"
The two recurring ideas I take from his his work
1.
The notion that history is perceived both by elites and manipulated masses as
following some inevitable evolutionary path. We are here at this point in time because
that is the only way it could be. This mindset appears to infest everyone who has a
theory of history (politics
/economics /social Darwinism etc) and despite being a rather
marxist take on the world it is embraced paradoxically in much of the thinking about the
free market and neo-liberal democracy. People have over the years accepted the state
of the world as some result of "history" or "human nature" rather than a accident by
influential elites with unforeseen consequences. when you look at his work no matter
what the point of the piece is its always a story of decisions and ideas by actors that
were not driven in some inevitable way.
2. People are
politically isolated and apathetic which tends to jar with the idea of non
inevitability somewhat because it suggests some generalising effect brought about by
"human nature", but paradoxically is result of people accepting the world as some
inevitable form?
I find much to criticise in AC's work but overall I sympathise with these two ideas. And
lets face it its damm good telly.
As for this syrian thing..I could almost imagine the TV version as a 10 min slot in a AC
series
17. At 12:49 30th Jun 2011, theartteacher wrote:
Whoo-hoo.
I wonder what you boys think when you see those little brave Arab Spring
types shouting 'Allah Akbar'. I can only imagine you shudder. But
you "shudn't".
Of course you're entitled to your interpretation. It just happens to be wrong. Firstly let's
bear in mind the Goodies and Baddies post, what that title and post is referencing.
The
blame in this situation is pretty clear, it's clear by the second paragraph - the lethal
combination of a deep simplification and almost behavioural approach to 'creating'
democracy in sovereign (ish) states, and a clear underlying set of Western liberal
interests and values that we seem desperate to impose all over the shop, unaware of
the dangers in
our bias, the contradictions that arise, or even the possibility of other
forms of social organisation.
Ok
so we have 'a management consulting team'. We have them 'working out how
America should contain the threat of communism in the Middle East'. And we see, above
the fireplace, 'the old European Empires had gone'. Who'd live in a house like this? Well
arrogance and hubris live there. The fear of communism is understandable, but the
complete assumption of their own right to influence Syria's affair to suit their
geopolitical agenda is a recipe for bad things. There's no question about a broader set
of ethics or ideals, or what suits any non-US interests in these terms, and of course
there are no real overarching questions or ideas in

'management consultancy'. Avi, you
say, "as if they somehow didn't already inherit a totally screwed up area" - as if they
don't have themselves to blame! What right did any colonial power have to the

"inheritance" of any colony in the first place?! This just in - Empire is narrow and brutal
and anti-democratic and its repercussions last a long time.
And
as for this ranting about Islam.....it reminds me of someone I heard say 'Islam is a
wicked, vicious faith'. Sorry - the simplification buzzer has just gone again. If you
meant the abuse of Islamic ideas, or the exploitation of people using Islam, then I
apologise. If you really do think Islam is inherently a destructive force, or preaches
hatred more than the atheistic or other religious tradition, then bring your Torah round
my house one night, someone bring their Mein Kampf, I'll get
my highlighters out, and
don't eat any cheese before you go to bed. This just in - the quest for certainty can lead
to holocausts.
Listen
it's not as if the bad guys are always at the top as such, but they have the power,
so they take the blame in large part. Simples. Us guys with the Playstations, we are
complicit, I'm sorry but it's true. But our complicity is dependent on power, in this case
the power to know that people died as a consequence of the battle for the resources
that make it. Knowledge or information as power.
"But liberalism is still about freedom, albeit now we liberals find ourselves in a world that
is no longer rational".
I'd
love to know when it was, firstly. Two, it can't be, and I wouldn't even want it to be
totally. Everything measured, everything efficient.....is that the gates of Dachau I can
hear creaking? Sorry, enough with the sarcasm. I think you're right, but individuated

liberalism is part of the problem. Because if it's about individual rights and freedoms,
then these are things (and it sounds contradictory when it shouldn't) that can only be
protected or actually gained through
collective action. E.g. you say about markets and
regulation. Well market regulation ain't rational to say, Murdoch (easy target). But it's
collectively rational and has an individually rational outcomes for lots of people.
It's
like the poor bugger in AWOBMOLG - he tried to help, but it wasn't the Hound of
Heaven that stopped him, it was the atomised way he tried to help, like the liberals in
the Congo, and the well-meaning in all the others stories we've heard - they actually
perpetuate, rather than stand
back and judge, the system that created the problem;
they work within the boundaries it sets up rather than collectively challenging its

inherent structure.
22. At 21:45 1st Jul 2011, dawghead wrote:
Good
points, artteacher2. I think we understand that Adam does not present the whole
story, and we have to bring to it a lot of what we understand and try to grasp a the
whole, like in the themes that mididoctors points
out. As a few examples from
AWOBMOLG of how Adam leaves relevant things
out of his narrative: from Adam's
telling, you'd think that the mass slaughter in Rwanda was caused by the Belgians, for
having created a false ethnic distinction between Hutus and Tutsis. But as Jared
Diamond points out in his book 'Collapse', while Hutus did kill Tutsis, the real
cause was
probably a lack of land. Rwanda has the greatest population density of any country in
Africa, overwhelmingly dependent on subsistance farming, and it had gotten to the
point where whole families
were trying to subsist on less than an acre. When the
massacres started, in areas where there were no Tutsis, the Hutu landowners were the
ones killed, and there is the strong suggestion that it was about land (even though
generally broke along the lines of those artificial ethinic distinctions of Hutus and Tutsis
and it could be seen as a proximate cause, it was really about haves and have nots.)
Another
example from that most recent series, if you take what Adam says at face
value, populations of animals are in constant flux and that means there is no
predictability, it's all chaos. But there is a superficial way of looking at chaos, and then
their is Chaos as the scientific community understands it, and it's a different thing;
chaos is actually where order comes from. It's not predictable in an absolute sense, but

there are actual systems involved, which definitely can be screwed up to
the point of no
return, as opposed to things you could do to sustain it
as it's been for generations, etc.
As a final example, with this

latest Syria blog post, I read Eugene Rogan's history of The
Arabs not long ago, and I don't remember any of this that Adam talks about. I'm not
saying it's not true, (I've also read Weiner's harrowing history of the CIA, 'A Legacy of
Ashes', and they did a lot of this kind of thing) but American interference may be a
small part of a greater picture. The context which Rogan builds up is the colonial powers
-- Britain, France,
earlier the Ottomans, and so on which influenced Syria and the other

Arab powers, often against what 'the people' generally would have wished. It's not a
simple story, nor can we really talk about 'The People' when there are so many different
ethnicities, etc.
Ultimately
though, I think Adam's work is invaluable, and he does give a sense of the
complexities involved. His work is not only entertaining, he brings up a wealth of
information, and he tells a good story. And then, there's
this blog and these comments,
where he opens up the conversation to the
rest of us. As far as I'm concerned, it's just
about the best thing on the internet.
23. At 21:45 2nd Jul 2011, avishalom wrote:
@theartteacher2
Your
statement about Mein Kampf and Torah is as ignorant as your sarcasm is revelatory
of empty grandstanding, and what verges on rambling.
But
if you want that debate, then we can have it. I've had it enough times to know the
psychology behind your words. Unless you are Jewish, you are
clueless about the Torah.
And I say this as a matter-of-facts, not as an insult.
Anyone who is going to start comparing citations from Torah with the Koran, has to pass
a basic test, "pardes."
Figure out, and give me a solid argument. otherwise you are an ignorant show-off, and a
slanderer of the Jewish faith.
24. At 09:25 3rd Jul 2011, tweedyanarchist wrote:
http://vimeo.com/25420574
The history of modernity through a caveman's frazzled mind (with a bit of That's Life
thrown in there) in 2 minutes 30 seconds.
25. At 08:18 4th Jul 2011, dawghead wrote:
@avishalom
- I agree that to compare the Torah with the Koran and then also Mein

Kampf was stupid and I wish theartteacher2 would take that back. He was making the
point about the dangers of certainties, but in a heavy handed
way, and it was I believe
directed at Egbert's potentially dangerous certainties. There's a lot of false and
potentially volitile information
in the Torah and the Koran if they are taken literally (I'm
Jewish so I
guess it's OK for me to say that). There are certainly differences -- taking
the Torah literally is pretty near impossible, and all the Mishnah and rabbinic tradition
balances it out and ensures that there's debate. That also exists in the Islamic tradition,
though it appears to be easier to take the Koran literally,or at least at this stage and too
many do. As for the Bible, fundamentalists take it literally but only selectively (a man
lying with a man and eating shrimp are condemned in the same manner, for instance).
But what really counts in all religions is the living reality of how they are practiced. I've
been personally lied to and swindled by some Hassids that could argue me under the
table
about the Torah. Blah blah, don't we all know this already?
26. At 11:45 4th Jul 2011, theartteacher wrote:
@
dawghead and avi - I think you're right about the comparisons I used, I
can only try
and assure you that I wasn't out to offend. Having read it
back I think 'heavy-handed' is
certainly fair, and I apologise in particular for using Mein Kampf for obvious reasons.
But I really, strongly, wanted to make the point that broad denominations of religion,
or
atheism, aren't inherently a recipe for fascism and tyranny and exclusion - that's part of
the human tradition. And although I'm
sorry
to offend, I think ultimately anyone should really be able to compare what they
like. But I didn't mean to use the reference flippantly; it's in my consciousness what I've
read and seen of events in Jewish history,
even as someone 'outside' of Judaism, and it
stays with me what Zygmunt
Bauman said about the Holocaust - we treat it like a
picture on a wall,
with no lessons to be learned.
"Unless
you are Jewish, you are clueless about the Torah" - I must say I don't accept
this at all, I think that, clearly, sets a very dangerous precedent. I don't want a
hermeneutics debate, I just think saying 'unless you are like me, or believe
what I believe, then everything you think on a subject is wrong'....well I don't have to
spell it out, it's just wrong.
I
mean I guess what I think of as problems in passages of the Hebrew Bible would be
some very obvious and predictable things - homosexuality being an abomination, the
mysogyny, slavery as an acceptable practise....I know that some people see these as
legitimate examples to guide the running of society or one's own life. The same
criticisms of course could be made of many texts.
Basically I'm not attacking Judaism, I hope that's clear, but I am attacking a lack of
humility as to what we know and in how we act.
@ dawghead - "what really counts in all religions is the living reality of how they are
practiced".
Although
I said I didn't want a hermeneutic debate, I think you're absolutely right and
perhaps that's exactly what we need more of. The questions you
ask of how and why
religious texts are translated in different ways, some more literally that others, is really
interesting and I suspect the
answers would reveal a great deal.
29. At 23:38 17th Jul 2011, ecitizen wrote:
"The
reality of Syria has been very difficult from the time Islam took over.
The notion
that Jews and Christians, who were a majority, and came to constitute a minority, had
it easy, is jejune. The entire reason why there are Alawites and Ismaili's is becuase
these were forced conversions, and according to the New Encyclopedia of Islam, did not
intend to remain Muslims. In the last 15 years, Saudi Arabia has funded the most
aggressive mosque building proram on earth, introducing 10 mosques to villages which
previously had one. This conquest, and the flood of refugees from neighboring Iraq, is a
powderkeg waiting to explode. It does not help, that reasonably credible information on
Saudi
plans backed by the US to destabilise the Assad"
Are you seriously suggesting that Alawites and Ismaili's are secretly non-muslims who
have yet to reveal their true nature waiting for the right moment, or even worse that
they forgot to revert back to their original religion? If so, how come there are Christian
Christians in Syria (and Jews prior to Israel)?
"Islam has been the heart of the regions problem since its arrival on the scened. It is

responsible for the sectarianism. Islam never flourished wherever it was
established. It
only flourished when it was a minority ruling over non-Muslims and exploiting their
labour and crafts. As their numbers dwindled under persecution and exploitation
(converted to Islam, annihilated) Islam showed itself for the unproductive and retarding
force of history which it is exposed as today."
This has been rejected by most credible historians (Muslims are the result of forced

conversion) as Muslims unlike their christian counterpart treated the original inhabitants
with more tolerance than their earlier respective empires (see how the Jews were
allowed back to Jerusalem following the Muslim conquest after they were exiled for a
handful of centuries)
Also,
if you honestly think Islam only flourished in the places in conquered see how
Islam spread in Central, Southeast and East Asia
It appears that you're unwilling to believe that a Jew or a Christian might be able to
convert to Islam without being forced to.
Try less obvious Islamophobia next time.
30. At 01:02 18th Jul 2011, ecitizen wrote:
^ @avishalom
31. At 16:54 29th Oct 2011, Globaltreat wrote:
32. At 16:55 29th Oct 2011, Globaltreat wrote:
33. At 05:29 31st Oct 2011, Treatment of Wastewater wrote:
This entry is now closed for comments
More from this blog...
Topical posts on this blog Archives Categories
SAVE YOUR KISSES FOR Past twelve months These are some of the popular
ME (31) November 2012 (2) topics this blog covers.
WHILE THE BAND PLAYED October 2012 (1)
ON (44) August 2012 (1) afghanistan
all watched over by
HE'S BEHIND YOU (31) June 2012 (1) machines of loving grace
back
MENTAL CHANNEL NUMBER May 2012 (2) stories
components
congo
ONE - THE MAN FROM April 2012 (1) election
how much do you know?
MARS (53) March 2012 (2)
it felt like a kiss
the strange
THE CURSE OF TINA (68) February 2012 (1) death of political england
THE PERPLEXING January 2012 (2)
POLITICIAN (20) December 2011 (2)
HOW TO KILL A RATIONAL November 2011 (1)
PEASANT (43) October 2011 (2)
WHITE NEGRO FOR complete archive
MAYOR (45)
IF YOU TAKE MY ADVICE - I'D
REPRESS THEM (40)
RUPERT MURDOCH - A
PORTRAIT OF SATAN (20)
CBBC Learning Northern Ireland
CBeebies Music Scotland
Comedy Science Wales
Food Nature Full A-Z
History Local
Mobile site Terms of Use About the BBC

Privacy Accessibility Help
Cookies Contact the BBC
BBC 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the Parental Guidance
content of external sites. Read more.

BBC - Adam Curtis Blog - THE BABY AND THE BAATH WATER PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BBC - Adam Curtis Blog - THE BABY AND THE BAATH WATER PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BBC - Adam Curtis Blog: THE BABY AND THE BAATH WATER

BBC iD News Sport Weather iPlayer TV Radio More Search

THE BABY AND THE BAATH WATER About this blog

Post categories: Back Stories Share The stories

For the latest updates across BBC blogs,

Subscribe to Adam Curtis Blog

You can stay up to date with Adam Curtis

Adam Curtis Blog Feed (RSS)

If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find

Manchester International Festival

They decided to start with Syria.

It didn't go as expected. The landowners and other elites ignored all

And the way to create this "quarantine" was by engineering a military

Here are some pictures of Aflaq.

The dream of Baathism was to overcome the sectarianism

Of the five conspirators, three of them - including Assad - came from

One idea of personal transformation had been replaced by another.

Sign in or register to comment.

1. At 22:32 16th Jun 2011, mcjhn1 wrote:

complain about this comment

2. At 23:32 16th Jun 2011, Moor Larkin wrote:

complain about this comment

3. At 23:50 16th Jun 2011, egbert_the_atheist wrote:

complain about this comment

4. At 16:46 17th Jun 2011, FoxyN wrote:

complain about this comment

5. At 13:45 18th Jun 2011, mididoctors wrote:

It's like Hip hop History

complain about this comment

6. At 14:21 18th Jun 2011, G wrote:

complain about this comment

7. At 16:31 18th Jun 2011, Felim wrote:

complain about this comment

8. At 17:00 18th Jun 2011, blatny93 wrote:

complain about this comment

9. At 22:08 19th Jun 2011, johnl wrote:

complain about this comment

10. At 19:51 21st Jun 2011, Cate wrote:

complain about this comment

11. At 13:36 22nd Jun 2011, avishalom wrote:

The only way to explain such anti-american sentiment is Soviet anti-colonial

complain about this comment

12. At 13:40 22nd Jun 2011, avishalom wrote:

[the above got cut off]

put a communist in the parliament?

The Elites. As if they always knew what to do.

The Americans. As if they were some ignorant children.

Sectarians/Divisions: as if they didn't represent real people.

complain about this comment

13. At 13:52 22nd Jun 2011, avishalom wrote:

Ok, real quick then.

complain about this comment

14. At 15:47 23rd Jun 2011, egbert_the_atheist wrote:

Oh but there is no end to it!

This is the pessimism of the left.

And so it is up to rational liberals to once

complain about this comment

15. At 12:45 24th Jun 2011, emma d wrote:

complain about this comment

16. At 21:43 29th Jun 2011, mididoctors wrote:

avishalom wrote: "deconstructing Curtis etc"

The two recurring ideas I take from his his work

complain about this comment