Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
President Obama, Say the 'D-Word'
It's incredible, really. The president of the United States can't bring himself to talk about democracy in the Middle East. He can dance around it, use euphemisms, throw out words like "freedom" and "tolerance" and "non-violent" and especially "reform," but he can't say the one word that really matters: democracy.
How did this happen? After all, in his famous 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim world, Obama spoke the word loudly and clearly - at least once.
"The fourth issue that I will address is democracy," he declared, before explaining that while the United States won't impose its own system, it was committed to governments that "reflect the will of the people... I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere."
"No matter where it takes hold," the president concluded, "government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power."
Simply rhetoric?
Of course, this was just rhetoric, however lofty, reflecting a moment when no one was rebelling against the undemocratic governments of our allies - at least not openly and in a manner that demanded international media coverage.
Now it's for real.
And "democracy" is scarcely to be heard on the lips of the president or his most senior officials.
In fact, newly released WikiLeaks cables show that from the moment it assumed power, the Obama administration specifically toned down public criticism of Mubarak. The US ambassador to Egypt advised secretary of state Hillary Clinton to avoid even the mention of former presidential candidate Ayman Nour, jailed and abused for years after running against Mubarak in part on America's encouragement.
Not surprisingly, when the protests began, Clinton declared that Egypt was "stable" and an important US ally, sending a strong signal that the US would not support the protesters if they tried to topple the regime. Indeed, Clinton has repeatedly described Mubarak as a family friend. Perhaps Ms Clinton should choose her friends more wisely.
Similarly, president Obama has refused to take a strong stand in support of the burgeoning pro-democracy movement and has been no more discriminating in his public characterization of American support for its Egyptian "ally". Mubarak continued through yesterday to be praised as a crucial partner of the US. Most important, there has been absolutely no call for real democracy.
Rather, only "reform" has been suggested to the Egyptian government so that, in Obama's words, "people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances".
"I've always said to him that making sure that they are moving forward on reform - political reform, economic reform - is absolutely critical for the long-term well-being of Egypt," advised the president, although vice-president Joe Biden has refused to refer to Mubarak as a dictator, leading one to wonder how bad a leader must be to deserve the title.
Even worse, the president and his senior aides have repeatedly sought to equate the protesters and the government as somehow equally pitted parties in the growing conflict, urging both sides to "show restraint". This equation has been repeated many times by other American officials.
This trick, tried and tested in the US discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is equally nonsensical here. These are not two movements in a contest for political power. Rather, it is a huge state, with a massive security and police apparatus that is supported by the world's major superpower to the tune of billions of dollars a year, against a largely young, disenfranchised and politically powerless population which has suffered brutally at its hands for decades.
The focus on reform is also a highly coded reference, as across the developing world when Western leaders have urged "reform" it has usually signified the liberalization of economies to allow for greater penetration by Western corporations, control of local resources, and concentration of wealth, rather than the kind of political democratization and redistribution of wealth that are key demands of protesters across the region.
Al Jazeera interview says it all
An Al Jazeera English interview on Thursday with US state department spokesman PJ Crowley perfectly summed up the sustainability of the Obama administration's position. In some of the most direct and unrelenting questioning of a US official I have ever witnessed, News Hour anchor Shihab al-Rattansi repeatedly pushed Crowley to own up to the hypocrisy and absurdity of the administration's position of offering mild criticism of Mubarak while continuing to ply him with billions of dollars in aid and political support.
When pressed about how the US-backed security services are beating and torturing and even killing protesters, and whether it wasn't time for the US to consider discontinuing aid, Crowley responded that "we don't see this as an either or [a minute later, he said "zero sum"] proposition. Egypt is a friend of the US, is an anchor of stability and helping us pursue peace in the Middle East".
Each part of this statement is manifestly false; the fact that in the midst of intensifying protests senior officials feel they can spin the events away from openly calling for a real democratic transition now reveals either incredible ignorance, arrogance, or both.
Yet this is precisely an either/or moment. Much as former US president Bush declared in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, we can either be "with or against" the Egyptian people. Refusing to take sides is in fact taking sides -the wrong side.
Moreover, Crowley, like his superiors, refused to use the word democracy, responding to its use by anchor al-Rattansi with the word "reform" while arguing that it was unproductive to tie events in Egypt to the protests in other countries such as Tunis or Jordan because each has its own "indigenous" forces and reasons for discontent.
That is a very convenient singularization of the democracy movements, which ignores the large number of similarities in the demands of protests across the region, the tactics and strategies of protest, and their broader distaste and distrust of the US in view of its untrammeled support for dictatorships across the region.
Systematic silence
Ensconced in a system built upon the lack of democracy - not just abroad, but as we've seen in the last decade, increasingly in the US as well - perhaps president Obama doesn't feel he has the luxury of pushing too hard for democracy when its arrival would threaten so many policies pursued by his administration.
Instead, "stability" and "reform" are left to fill the void, even though both have little to do with democracy in an real sense.
Perhaps Obama wants to say the D-word. Maybe in his heart he hopes Mubarak just leaves and allows democracy to flourish. By all accounts, the president is no ideologue like his predecessor. He does not come from the political-economic-strategic elites as did Bush, and has no innate desire to serve or protect their interests.
Feeling trapped by a system outside his control or power to change, maybe president Obama hopes that the young people of the Arab world will lead the way, and will be satisfied by congratulations by his administration after the fact.
But even if accurate, such a scenario will likely never come to pass. With Egyptians preparing to die in the streets, standing on the sidelines is no longer an option.
A gift that won't be offered again
The most depressing and even frightening part of the tepid US response to the protests across the region is the lack of appreciation of what kind of gift the US, and West more broadly, are being handed by these movements. Their very existence is bringing unprecedented levels of hope and productive activism to a region and as such constitutes a direct rebuttal to the power and prestige of al-Qaeda.
Instead of embracing the push for real democratic change, however, surface reforms that would preserve the system intact are all that's recommended. Instead of declaring loud and clear a support for a real democracy agenda, the president speaks only of "disrupting plots and securing our cities and skies" and "tak[ing] the fight to al-Qaeda and their allies", as he declared in his State of the Union address.
Obama doesn't seem to understand that the US doesn't need to "take the fight" to al-Qaeda, or even fire a single shot, to score its greatest victory in the "war on terror". Supporting real democratization will do more to downgrade al-Qaeda's capabilities than any number of military attacks. He had better gain this understanding quickly because in the next hours or days the Egypt's revolution will likely face its moment of truth. And right behind Egypt are Yemen, Jordan, Algeria, and who knows what other countries, all looking to free themselves of governments that the US and its European allies have uncritically supported for decades.
If president Obama has the courage to support genuine democracy, even at the expense of immediate American policy interests, he could well go down in history as one of the heroes of the Middle East's Jasmine winter. If he chooses platitudes and the status quo, the harm to America's standing in the region will likely take decades to repair.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
98 Comments so far
Show AllThe "D-word" is unmentionable because it would mean the "S-word," socialism.
How so?
Economic democracy you mean?
Mossadegh-style democracy that is too good to the locals at the expense of foreign betters?
Obama is a hero only to Wall Street and Obamabots.
The only "D-word" known to our Predator O'Bomber is drone, whether it's the endless droning on of his unctuous speech, or the drones he flies over the Middle East to kill those who had nothing to do with 9/11, but have the good sense and patriotism to oppose our occupation and the crooked Hamid Karzai.
LeVine sez: "Obama doesn't seem to understand that the US doesn't need to "take the fight" to al-Qaeda, or even fire a single shot, to score its greatest victory in the "war on terror". Supporting real democratization will do more to downgrade al-Qaeda's capabilities than any number of military attacks."
***
O'Bomber "understands" perfectly.
Downgrading al-Qaeda's capabilities would only serve to downgrade the cash flow to his patrons. Ditto "democracy" — anywhere.
Quite right.
Anything that departs from the Wall Street cost benefit analysis (Reptile predators-R-US) is just propaganda for the rubes.
And this:
"Yet this is precisely an either/or moment. Much as former US president Bush declared in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, we can either be "with or against" the Egyptian people. Refusing to take sides is in fact taking sides -the wrong side."
From the Monroe Doctrine to Woodrow Wilson's law of conquest to globalized pet dictators for corporate profits the USA has ALWAYS been on the profit for Wall Street side. Ther is no 'decision' to make. It was made over a century ago.
These snafus like people getting uppity about having to live like starving rats and being upset about government torure and harassment of the populace has always been handled by inserting a CIA funded Doppelgänger corrupt leader to replace the ousted punk thereby giving an appearance of democracy (when massive repression didn't work). They are probably trying to buy Elbaradei as we speak.
It's called "getting in front of the action"; an old PR strategy.
The implication of this article that the US government is capable of soul searching is laughable. The US Government is owned by unelected corporate CEOs who don't DO soul searching. Any politician that even considers it beyond platitudinous blather is shown the door.
But I do agree with the author on one thing; the US Government's policy is on the wrong side of history.
Watch the stock market to see how the real bosses in the USA feel about their chances of keeping a lid on democratic reform. If you see a 50% retraction or more, start to cheer. It means they are really sweating bullets and freedom and democracy is on the march for real.
Yes, I know the flash trading algorithms will try to jack the market up. I'm talking about the whole think tanking despite the massive fed manipulation because of predator panic.
Like Obama said in the SOTU address-- "democracy is messy." That's why the real powers that be hate it so much. What they want is predictability.
Bring America Back !!!!
***How do you expect him to say the "D" word when for
two years Obama has mot been able to utter the "G" word
for Gaza or Genocide==speaking of Govts who do not
represent their own people ????
***Obama adopted the Bush war postures==except for drones,
and now owns it as his own. Thats why he cannot utter
mission accomplished, since we are enduring the third
term of Bush.
***Team Obama is part and parcel of the military-industrial
complex and cultures of corruption, so they cannot utter
many words like Democracy, Genocide, or Tyranny !
**Team O wants re-elected and cannot utter anything the
MIC does not want to hear. !!!!
It is sad and depressing to note, as the author correctly implies, that one can get more truth and honesty from Al Jazeera than one would ever see and hear from any of the talking heads that are so indigenous in the corporate media of the United States.
ERROLL:
You said:
"the talking heads that are so indigenous in the corporate media of the United States."
Indigenous means "native" in the genuine sense of the term. I think you might have used the word omnipresent, or well-represented, or conspicuous, or even "ubiquitous," instead.
SiouxRose
You are right. That sentence would have been much better served and its meaning made more clear if the word ubiquitous had been used instead of the word indigenous.
Thank you for your Grace, Erroll. Once in a while I make a mistake, and in a forum like this, one can expect to be called on it. What's perplexing are those who turn on the person pointing the item out, as if to do so reflects some form of Nazi-style elitism. If we help each other improve our writing and streamline our thought processes, I'd say that could be a good thing.
Peace.
Siouxrose
I agree that it certainly would be a good thing if more people desired to write more eloquently. Unfortunately it seems that in the times that we live in this is somehow viewed as being rather inconsequential as so many people, both liberal and conservative, believe, and especially on the Internet, that content is everything while form and style and grammar and punctuation are things that should simply be cast aside. It is as if they take great pride in being thought of as being semi-literate. Passion is good but intelligence and caring about the English language along with passion is even better. I have constantly recommended on this site [to the point of ad nauseum, I suspect] the well written and very relevant book The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby but I suspect that my suggestion has fallen upon deaf ears.
Also, when I read your first sentence and your capitalization of the word grace it reminded me of the TV series that my wife is watching that is being shown on BBC called The Tudors. In that program Cardinal Woolsey [played by Sam Neill] plays a prominent part in that program and is constantly called your Grace by many of the characters including the egocentric Henry VIII. Please forgive what may seem to be an intemperate observation [though it is really said in jest] but it seemed that I had been relegated to a prominent position in the clergy which would be rather ironic considering the very secular beliefs that I have.
I'm reminded of the US State Department's persistent insistence in 2004 that the word "genocide" shouldn't be applied to the Rwandan genocide, because it was a "civil war, not a genocide."
Such word games are self-defeating over time. The censorship and euphemism tiptoes around the truth to a point where it wears a cumulative semantic groove around the very thing it's trying to avoid.
So the side-stepped truth of the matter, and the reasons for the disingenuous and deceitful side-stepping, become obvious to all but the most complacent and unreflective observers.
Genocide is a baby of a word (1944) and a giant among giants in propaganda use, particularly against Joe Stalin (a lie loved from end to end of the wee tiny American political spectrum).
"The jurist Raphael Lemkin, a Polish scholar of international law, coined the legal concept in 1944. He fled the German occupation of Poland in 1939 for Sweden, and at the end of World War II, he moved to New York to lobby the United Nations for an international genocide convention. He subsequently taught law at Duke and Yale Universities and was nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize.
In 1933 Lemkin delivered a paper at an international meeting in Madrid in which he focused on the historical destruction of racial, religious or other social groups. He called for an international convention that like that against slavery and piracy would make international crimes out of the destruction of groups, which lacking a better term, he called "Acts of Barbarity."
He was not satisfied with this very broad term, and it went nowhere in subsequent international law. Then, years later he came upon Plato's use of the Greek word genos for a "race," or "tribe." The idea naturally occurred to Lemkin to add the Latin -cide, which means "killer" or "act of killing" in Latin, as in homicide or suicide. Thus was born "genocide."
At the height of Holocaust, and with that in mind, Lemkin wrote his 1944 book on, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, which was the first public articulation of the concept. In it he proposed the international regulation of genocide-the "practice of extermination of nations and ethnic groups."
Lemkin played an important role in the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal trials of Nazi war criminals. He also lobbied at the UN during its debate on genocide, which concluded with the General Assembly resolution that "genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices are punishable.""
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.ENCY.HTM
Having been used beyond extensively in the greatest propaganda war of them all, the Cold War, the term is now thrown about like it encompasses anything larger than a gang fight. Certainly, it does virtually nothing to shed light on the particulars of any one war. There is an altogether more salient sense of it as a political club, even in this very instance.
On account of its sheer scale, one does see 'genocide' as exemplified by Rwanda. Still though, does that really -say- anything? Does it add to the construction in our minds of what happened there? I submit that it merely dumbs it down. And modernizes it and marginalizes it and strips it of its real roots, which are neither 'ethnic' nor 'tribal.' As conditions change, the people who live under those changed conditions are themselves of necessity changed.
This genocide is the fruit of capitalist imperialism in its full, archetypal relief.
Quote:The roots of Rwanda's genocide lie in its colonial experience. First occupied and colonized by the Germans (1894-1916), during World War I the country was taken over by the Belgians, who ruled until independence in 1962. Utilizing the classic strategy of "divide and rule," the Belgians granted preferential status to the Tutsi minority (constituting somewhere between 8 and 14 percent of the population at the time of the 1994 genocide). In pre-colonial Rwanda, the Tutsis had dominated the small Rwandan aristocracy, but ethnic divisions between them and the majority Hutus (at least 85 percent of the population in 1999) were always fluid, and the two populations cannot be considered distinct "tribes." Nor was inter-communal conflict rife. As Stephen D. Wrage states, "It is often remarked that the violence between Hutus and Tutsis goes back to time immemorial and can never be averted, but Belgian records show that in fact there was a strong sense among Rwandans ... of belonging to a Rwandan nation, and that before around 1960, violence [along] ethnic lines was uncommon and mass murder of the sort seen in 1994 was unheard of." (Wrage, "Genocide in Rwanda: Draft Case Study for Teaching Ethics and International Affairs," unpublished paper, 2000.)
This cycle of retribution on retribution lay squarely at the feet of the socioeconomic system that prevails today
"Does it add to the construction in our minds of what happened there?"
Perhaps not, but I think in the context of 1994, the parsing of words was simply intended to absolve the United States of its obligations under the Genocide Convention. Under international law, when genocide is taking place, it is incumbent upon the international community to intervene in order to stop the genocide. This is a commitment that all parties to the Genocide Convention have made.
By claiming that it was not genocide in Rwanda (while conceding that "acts of genocide" had ocurred), the US was simply splitting hairs as a way to weasel out of its obligation to act to stop the genocide.
Perhaps now, 16 years later, it is a matter of semantics, but at the time it had real policy implications.
SHEDDING TIERS: New screen name, or new poster? In either case, thank you for posting the erudite & interesting information.
DC: I think you nailed it on the semantics aspect. After all, it's also a matter of redesigning words that has allowed U.S. corrupt "leaders" to falsely legitimate torture techniques by suggesting prisoners are not prisoners at all, but rather, enemy combatants.
Note, too, how real organic food is being co-opted by the label of "natural," while Christian publishers are doing their utmost to "own" the use of word spiritual.
OS,
My sentiments as well.
But be careful. Your words are probably making some DC pentagon PR firm several million bucks as we speak. How? They are submitting a detailed plan using various media outlets to increase the percentage of Americans who are complacent and unreflective observers.
Euphemisms used to tiptoe around the truth are the bread and butter of our corporatocracy. The whole potemkin facade would collapse without PR fairy tales.
But you knew that.
I support your strategy of unvarnished truth against PR blather for empire.
Thank you, sir.
What is so stunning about US foreign policy is not just its moral depravity so well documented in William Blum's books, but that they relentlessly work against what would seem to be their very own interests.
Then again, an empire needs to create enemies to justify its far flung legions, doesn't it?
Is the US State Department stupid or evil? I choose 40% stupid, 60% evil.
Or maybe 40$ evil, 30% stupid, and 30% deer-in-headlight stupid. Let's hope it is more of the latter.
It's not only the State Department but the US Government. It is totally corrupted regardless of Party. Let there be regime change.
Your reply made no sense. The State Department is not a political party. And, the Labor Department, Interior Department, Agriculture Department HHS, SSA, FCC, EPA, or say MSHA OSHA, CPSC, DOT, FAA, Forest Service, National Park Service, are not at all involved in US foreign policy, or much policy making or any other sort.
There is a whole lot to the US government than just politicians and the awful things they are doing.
The fact that US policy is so clearly against its' own interests and even "self" destructive should serve as a gigantic warning flare to those who would try to understand what is really going on. The US as a nation/state, with constitution & declaration of independence & bill of rights etc... is a seperate entity that stands apart from the empire. The empire is city of london/ wallstreet/ boston vault/ chicago xchange/ hong kong xchange/ venice/ swiss banking/ corporate commodity cartels/ inter-alpha group of financiers/ "drop-box" cayman island financial operations, and dozens of other financial districts & NGOs that compose this global, "imperial archipelago". Sovereign nation/states with gov'ts of/by/for the people & constitutions etc... are the empire's deadliest enemies, and the victims that the empire parasitically preys upon. This modern form of empire is viral. It uses its victim/host to supply the propaganda to weaken the morals, integrity, intellect, of the "local pops" to prepare them for the impending depredations. The victim/host will supply a huge number of "moral idiots" (some very clever & intelligent, but no longer knowing what is right & what is wrong)who will be willing(some), or unwitting(most), agents-of-empire for their "30 pieces of silver". The victim/host will supply the very military & police state forces that the empire will use to destroy the victim/host (financially & economically by embroilment in pointless "wasting wars" in faraway places), then, finally, physically at home, with a martial law lockdown. Finally, the empire will make sure that all other nation/state people will guffaw & laugh at the sad demise of the victim/host for having been so foolish to fall for such a ruse, secure(complacent) in the "knowledge"(propaganda), that "it can never happen here to such a wise & respectable people as us".
This has been the empire's game for many centuries now. But their time is up. The transformation is coming like the dawn just over the horizon. Their game is almost run its' course. A new game is coming to town. Keep watching.
You seem to be observing the that modern nation state, birthed by capitalism, is now about to be strangled by it.
I think that may well be the case.
It happened with slavery.
INB: Your ideas are broad in scope and this particular post is quite prescient. I would like to ask that you correct one item:
The word it is is often written as it's.
An entity (it) does not require an apostrophe to suggest possession. The possessive use of the term is implicit to the very word: its. No need for its'... this is very tricky for a lot of people. I see derivativs of this mistake all over C.D.
Yes, William Blum's work, such as "Killing Hope," will cure anyone's ideas that the United States fights for democracy around the world. Highly recommended.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/
Killing-Hope/William-Blum/
e/9781567512526/?itm=1
-TIA
TIA:
I concur. See also Blum's website: www.killinghope.org
>>Perhaps Obama wants to say the D-word. Maybe in his heart he hopes Mubarak just leaves and allows democracy to flourish. By all accounts, the president is no ideologue like his predecessor. He does not come from the political-economic-strategic elites as did Bush, and has no innate desire to serve or protect their interests.
I think my bullshit meter just exploded. Those Harvard boys don't nearly have that innate desire like those Yalie boys.
Lefty, just wish to confirm that your bullshit meter was properly calibrated!
I have to respectfully disagree with Prof. Levine. It seems to me that unless we are going to substantively change our policies, including the cutting of all military aid to countries that systematically repress their people, it is nothing but hypocrisy to throw around words like democracy, especially since we don't even have real democracy at home. This is one change that I actually welcome in the Obama era -- there is decidedly less bloviating, self-serving and stunningly hypocritical political posturing over "freedom and democracy."
Remember how infuriating it was to hear Bush constantly preaching democracy, while doing everything in his power to eliminate at home, and continuing our policies of supporting dictators like Mubarak abroad? I'm sick of it -- I never want to hear another US politician preaching democracy until we actually practice it, both at home and abroad. I actually have a lot more respect for the Obama administration for being slightly less hypocritical. (Of course, not because they have changed policies, but rather, eliminated some of the most egregiously hypocritical rhetoric.)
Why doesn't Prof. Levine call instead for the US to cut aid to Egypt?
If there was true democracy in the ME, the people would tell the U.S. government to go f*** itself.
On the same day Obama declared his commitment to "human rights" in Egypt, WikiLeaks released State Department cables documenting US knowledge of and complicity in the Mubarak regime’s use of torture and assassination against political opponents.
The labels on the tear gas cannisters "Made in the USA" are a stunning confirmation of the role the U.S. plays in the Arab world. The unrest, unleashed partially by WikiLeak's revelation, has now spread to Jordan, Yemen, and Syria, which has shut down the Internet in that country. Once again, WikiLeaks has exposed and exploited a vulnerability in the repressive apparatus of imperial control.
The speed with which these disruptions are spreading throughout the region reveals a weakness in the global society of control that must be targeted with the same speed. The Egyptian Internet blackout has been imposed so that protesters can be jailed, tortured and executed with impunity. And we can anticipate that the higher the rate of torture and death, the more the Obama administration will declare their undying dedication to human rights. Read WikiLeaks if you want to know what they really believe in, not the fantasies LeVine presents here about Obama's secret desire for democracy.
These cracks in imperial hegemony in the Middle East will be addressed in the same way that the US-sponsored coup in Honduras was supported. A false equivalence between the protesters and the government will be made, calling on both sides to show "restraint". By promoting this false equivalence, the US can pretend to be "even-handed" in mediating the conflict between wildly unequal opponents. Pretending to be neutral in such a situation is an effective way of giving unilateral support to the preferred side.
The spectacular hypocrisy of this moment is movie-like. The very "democratic revolution" that we claimed to be unleashing with the Iraq war is actually happening right before our eyes. And the Obama administration will do everything in its power to keep the lid on tight.
Very well said!
if the premise of "equivalency" is maintained, however false it is, that elevates the position of protestors, as well as devalues the position of those in power.
this could be a sign of willingness to see change happen, even while appearing not to support such change.
and are you suggesting the u.s. will be sending in its own troops to help crush the uprising?
"if the premise of "equivalency" is maintained, however false it is, that elevates the position of protestors, as well as devalues the position of those in power."
It only elevates their position in a rhetorical sense. In a practical sense, calling on both sides to show restraint actually favors the more powerful side (the government), as Boyd Collins clearly showed in his next-to-last paragraph.
Thanks, hamster. That's exactly what I meant. By pretending to a false equivalence between weaponless protesters and the Egyptian government with its massive police force and army, Obama is accomplishing his political aims. He is setting the stage for the protesters to be justly punished for their "violence." He is also readying the two "equivalent" parties for negotiations in which they will have to recognize that there is "good and bad on both sides." Unfortunately, the weaker side will have to make much greater concessions, particularly when their "violence" is equated to that of the police and military armed by the U.S. LeVine implied this in the following passage, "These are not two movements in a contest for political power. Rather, it is a huge state, with a massive security and police apparatus that is supported by the world's major superpower to the tune of billions of dollars a year, against a largely young, disenfranchised and politically powerless population which has suffered brutally at its hands for decades." This was exactly the same technique that was so effective against the Honduran protesters in the U.S.-inspired coup.
And so then, it becomes quite completely and incontrovertibly clear that the reality of violent revolution is all that really holds the promise of vanquishing the exploiting class.
This is verboten in the American political dialogue.
Because it is the dangerous truth.
The real world, past and present, prove that up.
I like the cut of your jib. Welcome to CD!
BOYD: The forum is fortunate to have your contributions. Your excellent command of language coupled with your profound analyses are very much appreciated. You said so much in so few words, and all of it is right-on!
WARNING: ASTROLOGY SPOKEN HERE...
I posted on several occasions last summer in reference to a very powerful astrological configuration. It took shape in August 2010. I also made it clear that these dynamic cosmic congresses are not a "one shot" deal. The planets continue to cross those same "live" points and trigger them the way a photographic negative can continue to reproduce the same image when charged with light (and certain chemicals).
Much of the indicated processes have thus far manifested through destabilizing weather events. One reason there isn't more upheaval of "the masses" is because the true condition of world economies remains hidden behind a number of devious devices... still, the fabric of "stability" is coming unglued. We now are beginning to witness explosions in the form of human revolt.
Aries is the sign of war. It is also the sign of individualism.
Mars is the planet that "rules" Aries and it's now moving in close alignment with the sun through Aquarius, the sign that represents TRUE freedom, TRUE equality, and the ideal of "amistad" moving across racial, ethnic, religious, and national boundaries.
Uranus (the planet that rules Aquarius) will enter Aries (for its first sustained visit in 84 years) on March 11. I was wondering how warfare would alter under this 7-year influence. Keep in mind, the Pentagon published a study several years ago that focused on URBAN scenarios (likely based on people rising up against their corrupt masters). Uranus in Aries is anticipating itself, about to summon the ideal of self-determination on a massive scale.
Uranus (and Aquarius, the sign it governs) is deeply associated with Truth, as drawn from Universal Law. Since we take it as self-evident that all men and women are created equal and endowed, by their Creator, with free will and the right to the pursuit of happiness... no human agency is intended to rob that gift from any living, sentient being.
Aries is the key sign of self-determination. With the sun-Mars combo now transiting Aquarius, the fervor is building that will increasingly seek to undermine the old ways. Aquarius is the sign that will define & design the ideals behind mankind's existence over coming centuries.
Nor does the wisdom implicit to the star-plans stop at national borders. This revolution will be global... maybe the US will be last to catch on?
It always amazes me when actual events run so synchronously with the themes generated from the "As above, so Below" Divine equation. As now.
Thank you for your kind words, SiouxRose. Your encouragement and that of others keeps me working away at this resource, hoping to forge discussions that can widen our understanding of the events rushing towards us. It has long been evident that the huge military build-up in the U.S. is not focused only on subjecting resource-rich regions in the Middle East, but is also designed to be used against internal threats. One of the reasons the U.S. provides so much military aid to countries such as Egypt and Israel, especially the latter, is to develop and refine effective techniques for the repression of dissent. From what you've written above, it appears we are moving into an era in which a war for true freedom and equality will break out. We can only hope that those who truly believe in freedom, equality and human dignity will possess the spiritual weapons needed to be victorious.
What though is "freedom?"
I will submit that freedom is a construct entirely bound up in the notion of property, having not existed in the absence of property.
There are still tribes on the planet with no words for 'please' or 'thank you' or even loose analogues. That's is because there is no conception of personal ownership.
Freedom is about the freedom to accumulate property and enjoy societal structures that sanctify and protect that accumulation.
On the flip side, here in the proverbial city on the shining hill, you are free to die if you are sick and free to starve if you are sufficiently hungry. That is unless you are buffered by property.
Can't accumulate personal property without a sense of person, either huh? So then "freedom" is also bound up in the bourgeois notion of individualism.
For this and other reasons, I say screw "freedom."
I want labor, food, shelter, education, and leisure.
But screw "freedom."
Interesting post. Thanks.
I have been on here for years railing against the use of the term "freedom." It is obviously a word of great utility for propagandists and other sophists who would combine interests with the usage that have little to do with each other and that often are quite antagonistic (helpful in convincing the little people to support policies that they never really intended to support at all). "Freedom" in the mouth of a US propagandist almost always has to do with property rights (as you state) and often means the right of corporations to control the US or some other nation's economic and political system.
I do believe that it could have a useful meaning for the rest of us in the general sense if we could agree to restrict it to meaning "freedom from domination by others," including all others, whether governmental or private entities. Of course "domination" can be somewhat difficult and slippery itself, especially when the creation and maintenance of a healthy and harmonious society requires all to follow a certain set of rules, so the general usefulness of the term "freedom" would still be limited, and we are far away from a state of agreeing on that definition. As for the specific sense, e.g., the "freedom to vote," the word "right" is usually more appropriate and direct and so preferable.
So, like you, I have little use for the term as it is currently used.
FREEDOM FROM WANT....The middle class if we still have one.....are now finding out what the rest of us have already been enduring. Those who continue to believe that the light at the end of the tunnel...is hope and a way out...are in for a very bumpy ride.
The media is full of how great the stock market is doing. We are headed for another very big bust. The greed and the much-preferred obtuse blindness in this country never cease to amaze me.
Actually, there have been dialects throughout history without reference to time, space, and especially autonomous "personhood". With all three being unexamined assumptive concepts layered on direct perception, constituting a serious, REDUCTIONIST error in identification of "self" and "world" right off jump street. No wonder the mindless, compensatory drive for accumulation and aggrandisement. Paradoxically, when we get the existential right about ourselves, all we need is the mundane as inferred by SheddingTiers.
BOYD: You are very welcome. You deserve the encouragement. Thank you for seeing widely and speaking wisely.
I don't know about spiritual weapons, but what came to me in the process of completing a new book is that the next (global) revolution will happen on the basis of a whole different FREQUENCY.
The cosmic dial of time is a beautiful thing because it explains the progression of history.
From the authoritarian grip of Capricorn (where Pluto currently passes), rules become so tight, laws so unfair, that as we see in a number of nations, large groups of people acting collectively to burst their chains.
After Capricorn, the Saturn-ruled sign that aligns closely with the mores of the Old Testament and lends itself to tight rules (along with their enforcement) comes Aquarius. This sign is represented by and through friendship. Most of us give our friends a lot of room to be who they are. Inside families, there's far more effort to hold all to standards of conformity.
Time is understood through manmade constructs. These are not absolute. The ancients told time by the moon, rather than the earth's journey around the sun. Meanwhile the planetary dials (along with their respective cycles) operate as reliable cosmic clockworks; and they can help us to understand the phases that imbue our lives with character and purpose.
Not all astrologers agree on the starting date to the Aquarian Age. I believe it IS now, and I have explained the current overlap of two key planetary cycles as my reason for this insistence.
Someone said I "attracted a troll" in a thread some time ago. Unfortunately, I have "attracted" more than one. The witch-hunts have never ended... astrologers were the first heretics, and to those right wing frauds masquerading as "progressives" (or from the extreme Marxist Left) in this forum, we're likely to be tagged the Last Heretics, too.
Watch out for signs of our government infiltrating our own "saviour" into the bublling cauldron before it cool down and "gel" or solidifies. Can our "reservist candidate" Mr. Baraddei or Mr. Ayman Nour play this role for Egypt? Can the Egyptians and Tunisians look forward to anyone other than another graduate from our "School of Puppets" from which had emerged leaders like Mr. Maliki of Iraq, Mr. Kazai of Afghanistan, Ms. Bhutto of Pakistan, Mr. Abishit of Thailand, Mr. Bang Bang Yudhoyono of Indonesia, Mr. Aquino of Philippines, Mr. Lee Myiung Bok of South Korea, Mr. Kan of Japan, and maybe Ms. Ong Sang Su Ki of Myanmar, etc., etc. ?????
RE: "The president of the United States can't bring himself to talk about democracy in the Middle East." - Mark LeVine
SEE: "Israel Fears Regime Change in Egypt" - By Gil Yaron in Jerusalem, Spiegel Online, 01/28/11
Israel is watching developments in Egypt with concern. The government is standing by autocratic Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, out of fear that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood could take power and start supplying arms to Hamas.
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,742186,00.html
The President does not support democracy here, why should he there?