Revolution in the Middle East

In Tunisia there were popular protests that caused a president to resign in a currently boiling over endless struggle of politics.  In Egypt there are similar protests going on in another active struggle for democracy.


In my opinion one cannot "have" a democracy, one can only constantly (re)create a democracy which if it were truly investigated is hardly democracy. Which is why one must keep reaching for democracy as if one does not have it, but this process of reaching for democracy is itself the closest thing to actually "having" democracy. The protests (or to put it in a different way to leave the negative connotations our corporate media has attached to that word): "a conglomeration of public politically active peoples" is a good thing in any country. People need to engage in the political process as individuals not as pieces of an illusory homogenized whole that is then "represented". As an individual against orthodoxy, I would like to explain why I can hold such a view when I am critical of all epistemologies because of internal contradictions.



It is my belief that the best way to explain anything is to historicize it. How can I justify holding a belief that people within any country no matter how the government is labeled(democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy etc.) will benefit from actively engaging the political process?



Lets start with Egypt, which is the center of a question for US policy right now: Should the US support the protesters against one of the largest recipients of U.S. Aid? Support the protestors against the regime which moderated enough to recognize Israel(thats why the Aid)? Support the protestors against the regime which houses many of their CIA black sites?



The easy answer for the United States is to just be quiet and stay in the background like Tunisia. The problem with that is that silence is violence for the United States, because of its ubiquity in the domestic governments of many countries. Current  conceptions of sovereignty which are not fluid cannot recognize that the United States is in many ways a de facto world government. Certain countries have surrendered autonomy in certain places to get things from the hegemon(US). In Okinawa the soldiers can rape, murder, and drive drunk all day. They can't be prosecuted, because of the Status of Force Agreement between Japan and the US. This is in return for the United States military protection of their country cerntrally and military protection of the energy supply more loosely. When the United States does nothing about a spontaneous flare up of democratic tendencies, it is giving an OK to the regime which will tamp it down.
The United States should not take the easy way out and instead follow the advice of Jefferson and MLK jr: democratic revolution. The american revolution was not a divinely ordained event and it did not expose any universal truths. What I mean to say by these two qualities is that the american revolution can be exported, what I mean by the latter is that this revolution is not a universal truth so we should not engage in violence which would be an action of forcing democracy on a people which is a farce as we see in Iraq. The revolution should be exported, but with ideas and support(monetary, logistical). The only problem is that our revolution was too violent, our country was created by terrorists, in order to make sure that part of our revolution doesn't get exported we need to support peaceful revolutions WHENEVER the opportunity presents itself. Like in Tunisia and Egypt. But that is simply an ethical concern, why would I really be able to justify such a strong statement that these flare-ups of democracy are good and crushing them is bad?


The only justified knowledge comes from history, so lets look specifically at Egypt. Egypt was a country colonized by multiple powers, but eventually the British got a monopoly. During this time Britain controlled the political apparatus of Egypt through their puppets the Monarchs. Eventually nationalist groups or groups that are united by their national identity starting growing. These individuals felt that monarchs who pretended to be pious while allowing Britain to run the country were not good for their interests. Many nationalist uprisings were slaughtered by the British. In an example of where democratic action was not allowed to happen by an overbearing government. In a policy that is still alive today in Egypt any political parties had to be licensed in a process that no party except those which were puppets of Britain were allowed to exist. In this context the Society of The Muslim Brethren was formed. Religion being the one area which the regime would shy away from regulating. This society was a welfare and community service oriented entity. Through writing, criticizing, and activism using religion as the justification for demands the Muslim Brotherhood made attempts to better the political situation of Egyptians who faced an uncaring colonial power and later an autocratic nationalist regime.

The next generation of Brotherhood leaders included an individual named Sayyid Qutb. Qutb was put in prison and tortured for his political activism. Many other members of the brotherhood were treated in similar ways. The torture effected Qutb's outlook and thusly influenced the outlook of the entire Muslim Brotherhood, which by this time had proved a huge success (in terms of membership) with international potential. Qutb essentially opted out of the peaceful means of his predecessors. How can one be peaceful and criticize through the language of Islam, but face torture and imprisonment for it? What was the brotherhood going to gain from repeating this process? The people in power will stay in power and people who speak out for Muslims or Egyptians will receive the worst of all possible existences: life as torture. It was time to turn the page on these ineffective attempts at democracy and take a cue from the American Revolution: use violence.

Qutb became a lionized figure of violent jihad to such a degree, that it is impossible to imagine 9/11 without the life experience and subsequent writings of Qutb. I do not mean to say that Qutb bears responsibility for 9/11 and I do not mean to say that the hijackers, wahabbi, saudi, or pakistan do not bear their responsibility. I am only pointing out that things become possible by their historical trajectory. If Britain had brought democratic reforms they might still be in a great mutual beneficial relationship with Egypt, far more advantageous to Britain in the long run then blowing money keeping democracy down and eventually getting thrown out. If the nationalists had learned from the mistakes of the monarchs/britain and made political parties an accepted part of democracy the Brethren wouldn't have had to go underground. If the Egyptian government hadn't been dead set on imprisoning, torturing, and martyring the leaders of a religious movement maybe violent jihadis wouldn't have so much motivation and empirical evidence for the justification of violence.

Non-violent democracy should be cherished and supported. If one does not support such events, there are two alternatives: do nothing or actively destroy. Doing nothing is seen as complicity with the current regime, because of the close relationship Egypt has with the United States, they cannot feign ignorance with such a key ally. Which means they lend legitimacy to the efforts of the Egyptian government to actively destroy. This has taken the form of violent counter-democratic actions: beatings, chemical warfare, rubber bullets, etc.

When groups attempt to achieve their agenda peacefully and are met with violence, these groups learn that they cannot achieve their agenda peacefully. This leaves one option: violence.

If instead when groups attempt to achieve their agenda peacefully they are met with debate and compromise, that group will feel that they have won and will feel empowered by their inclusion in the political process, reducing the probability of violence to a negligible amount.

If we don't want more Al-Qaedas and more violent idealogues with the scars to justify such venom, then we should use our foreign policy to support groups who engage in the political process.

My September 24th

The bus ride was tight. The bus ride was long. But it was worth every minute.
The mall was packed. The obelisk ringed with people. And the crowd was shoulder to shoulder all the way to the stage in back of the white house. There were 2 stages and a tightly controlled area for us to do our marching.
Cindy Sheehan, McKinney, Jesse Jackson, Galloway, and many others spoke for a few hours before the march. As the march was starting Nader took the mic.
The march was my favorite part(besides Barbara Lee and McKinney): There were SO MANY people marching. There was not actually a march. reader raises eyebrow.
The area for marching was a small square between 15th and 17th street. As everyone went to the streets to march….......THE ENTIRE SQUARE WAS FILLED. There was no room for marching, instead the entire procession kind of took baby steps around the ring because there were so many people.
As the march winded down the other stage opened up. Saw a couple bands that I am not familiar with, then Joan Baez took the stage.
Around the stages there was little or no violence. The violent segment (self-proclaimed anarchists[see: Young’uns]) did a good job of keeping away from the peaceful protest. I had heard they were gonna go fuck up the recruitment center.
This is exactly the kind of action that facilitates both aims. Keeping seperate from the peaceful protestors and fuckin’ with recruiters thats all good. This was the only violent altercations I had heard of. The spraypaint by the farragut north metro stop “Fuck Capitalism” it gave me a laugh, but seriously, did the person who painted this think that this was effective at doing anything, but making the media and populace reject the ideas of the protestors prima facie?
One other incident of violence I had actually heard of. The pro-war protestors(who should just put on a black bandanna and start throwin rocks at cops if they really wanted to protest the protest[but oh yah thy’re not that intelligent, after all they’re PRO WAR!]) One of the self-proclaimed anarchists snagged a sign from one of them and started beating them with it. This disgusts me, who is this kid think he is that he can enact violence on another who is peacefully expressing their opinion. His action is on the same level morally as the cops clubbing and gassing anti-war protestors. (and seriously is there ANYTHING you need to do to a pro-war protestor besides tell them: “join the fucking military if you like this war so much!”?)
There were a vast amount of factions in this rally. The central meme was stuck with though, which was the most important factor I thought going down. There was a little talk of Palestine and Haiti, but this rally focused (as it should have) on the occupation of Iraq. This IS the most pressing issue fothe day.
I do not believe in the feasibility of this action. I believe this action is 90% symbolic. I also have been asking everyone I come across(back in Chi) if they heard ANYTHING about anti-war protests in DC. The answer has so far ALWAYS been NO. The media didn’t cover it.
Public opinion is swinging though. We may get out sooner then 2008 like Wolfowitz said. I just wish people didn’t have to WORK to see the cost of war, that the media would actually explain the cost of war. Show the flag draped coffins, show the endless numbers of soldiers returning with PTSD, put another commercial after the recruitment commercial about how you’re gonna come home from Iraq and your wife will be pregnant with someone elses kid, because the white house wanted you there for 3 years straight.
So my freind and I took off during Joan Baez, we had to catch our bus and we missed Steve Earle :( . Not only that but we couldn’t go through my second home in Mt. Pleasant to roll through my favorite burrito shop(not even sure if its still in business).
22 hours on a bus, 6 hours at the rally. Well…...............................tiring to say the least…................................but again: worth every minute.
Favorite quote: Cynthia McKinney- ”...Criminal negligence on 911…”(reading a laundry list of evil and stupid things this white house has done).
Shout out to the Guy with “Al-CIAdah” poster board- Don’t look so depressed! more people then you think know that 911 was facilitated by elements within our federal government. All that ”’bout to put a bullet in my head” look, its not inspiring, just makes people think you’re a street preacher.
Anyway hopefully there will be no need for another rally, bit if there is another I hope to see you there. I’ll be the one with the cheesy american flag hat lookin’ like i’m ‘bout to go to a nascar race.

Fuck Violent Protestors

I was reading this shitheads blog where he starts saying he supports people fighting with cops at protests. Fuck the dumb shit.
Fact:Protests are needed because without the peoples voice a democracy will not know what to do, leaving us with at best an ineffective government and at worst a totalitarian government.Fact:we are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble and the right to freedom of speech. We are wronged illegally if either of these rights are violated.
Assumption: Some people believe that violence is a morally sound option at a peaceful protest.
There are Three situations where violence at a non-violent protest is merited: 1. Self-defense, at many time self-defense is needed to save your own life/to save your body from permanent damage.
2. Defense of others: a freind, a relative, or just some person being put to death by the domestic security forces may need defense.
3.Freedom of speech/assembly: Other times at a peaceful protest the police will illegally block off a road, protestors willing to break the law may be needed to break this down to let the rest of the protest through. Sometimes while attempting to remove barriers to protests violence is needed.
What happens when individuals react with violence at a peaceful assembly, when violence is not merited:1. Cops start shoting their rubberbullets at you and slamming you with the military grade tear gas. Of course none of it hits you, its just everyone around you. You bring pain and suffering upon individuals who wanted nothing but to express their opinion.
2.It provides negative press reaction, because they LOVE the clips of those “students/commies/anarchists” starting shit. You need to make the pigs look like the assholes(think lunch counter sit-ins) which is not that hard if you don’t react with violence when violence is not merited. Negative press reaction destroys the effect of all protest to share “what’s goin’ on” with the entire world.
IF YOU DO NOT WANT YOUR PEERS BEATEN DON’T START STUPID SHIT.
rebuttals:1. “Cops beat the shit out of protestors no matter what, why do I care if I bring beatings to the people around me?”-ok, lets assume cops beat the shit out of protestors at 100% of protests. Inciting violence when it is not merited will make cops either aggravated or embarrassed. If the cops are aggravated or embarrassed in any way is it not logical to assume they will cause more pain and suffering to these individuals who just want to express their opinion peacefully?
2. “Try taking pepper spray to the face and not get pissed off, or see someone you love get hosed and beaten. You’ll want to stick the fucker”-Watch those lunch counter sit-ins, see them get beaten around and they didn’t do shit. You expose who the real animal is, and its not the people the news labeled as radicals.
3.”The violent protestors get more press then the packaged less-passionate protestors will ever get”-Remember who coined the term “There is no such thing as bad publicity. His name was Richard Milhous Nixon.
The moral of the story: Next time you see the empty bottle pick it up and throw it, in a recycling bin instead of into the line of soldiers of the status-quo.
Moral of the story for sensible people who don’t react with violence when it is not merited: Next time you see the guy pickin’ up a bludgeon of scrap metal and cocking back to throw it. Encircle his forearm with your hand and just ask “why?”. He knows its just going to hurt someone whos going to want retribution, which only means excess pain and suffering for his peers.
Final words:Protests either should be completely non-violent, or should have seperate entities of peaceful and violent natures. We saw some of this at the RNC and the uninaguration. The violent protestors travel together(away from the peaceful protestors) where they are needed to destroy roadblocks or defend peaceful protestors being killed. You personally wanna tussle with cops, well then break some traffic laws and the first one that shows up start shooting, I don’t give a fuck, thats YOUR ass. The minute you put other people’s (unwilling)asses on the line with your violence thats when I say “Fuck You!”
Disclaimer:In no way would I like to downplay the moral repugnancy of law enforcement when it comes to allowing peaceful protests. No matter what you do young guerrilla you’ll still never be as bad as the pigs that are brainwashed in to thinking that they’re still fighting the cold war and we’re communists (or they’re fighting the war on terrorism and we’re all John Walker Lindhs). They are still far worse for spraying kids, females, and the elderly with their fucking pepper spray. As well as bludgeoning the same people within inches of death, many times completely unprovoked.
Far too many of you so-called “anarchists” sound more like little totalitarians, willing to bring pain and suffering upon others for your own dreams to be realized.