Now the Americans want credit for the Egyptian Rev

Now the Americans want credit for the Egyptian Revolution?

“In an old townhouse in East Boston an elderly stooped man is tending rare orchids in his shabby office. His Labrador Sally lies on the floor between stacks of academic papers watching him as he shuffles past.

This is Dr Gene Sharp the man now credited with the strategy behind the toppling of the Egyptian government.Gene Sharp is the world's foremost expert on non-violent revolution. His work has been translated into more than 30 languages, his books slipped across borders and hidden from secret policemen all over the world...

For decades now, people living under authoritarian regimes have made a pilgrimage to Gene Sharp for advice. His writing has helped millions of people around the world achieve their freedom without violence. "As soon as you choose to fight with violence you're choosing to fight against your opponents best weapons and you have to be smarter than that," he insists.” - source

What a joke. Then again, perhaps Gandhi read Gene Sharp’s book too. And maybe, Jesus, the Buddha, Guru Nanak, Martin Luther King, amongst a host of others, might have spent some time reading his thoughts on their Amazon Kindle. Just because the strategies used by revolutionaries may be found in his book doesn’t mean that it was inspired by it. Simple logic. But we are talking about americans here. They probably believe that the sun only rises when they get out of their beds and scratch their arses whilst chewing on a bagel.

What i would say is that Gene has basically studied the non-violent revolutionaries of the past, and summarised their efforts. That’s just about it.  He might have furthered a few points, but other than that, he's simply put his name, and that of 'the greatest nation on earth', on the collective works of many others.
What i would say is that Gene has basically studied the non-violent revolutionaries of the past, and summarised their efforts. That’s just about it. Nothing more. He might have furthered a few points, but other than that, he's simply put his name, and that of 'the greatest nation on earth', on the collective works of many others. We’ve had non-violent revolutionaries since before the time of Christ. Buddha for instance. And of course Jesus, Guru Nanak, and the largest scale and earliest non-violent movement was that of Gandhi’s. Yes, there was violence as well, but that wasn’t the spirit and method of the movement. You could say that the British were ‘prayed and fasted’ out of India. And this, and the non-violence of Jesus, did inspire the great Martin Luther King as well in his non-violent opposition to white oppression. So Gene being given credit for being the brains behind the revolutions in the Middle East is like the so-called Queen and over-hyped Willy boy (prince william to idiots) taking credit for their positions and achievements whilst keeping silent about how they require everyone else’s money and worship to do so.

It is pretty insulting how americans constantly try to take credit for the good in the world. Being pissed off with the authorities and doing something about it is an old thing. Very old. Look at the revolt of the plebeians against patrician rule in Rome who withdrew their labour and forced change. Look at the revolt against the caste system in India about 2000 years ago. Look at Buddha breaking away from his princely status and turning up his nose at those with upturned noses. Look at the beautiful communal beliefs of Guru Nanak. And i can go on and on. People have their own ideas in the face of their own problems, and the culture which they practice. Yes, they do get inspired by the perspectives of others as well. As i’ve said before, that, oftentimes, there is no such thing as invention, only innovation.

If Gene is getting the credit here, and through him, the americans, it is not because he is the father of non-violent revolution, but because much of the world has been trained, via Mickey Mouse, the Justice League, and the mess of american media, to discount sources of insight from all sources unless it nicely wrapped in the star-splattered banner.
If Gene is getting the credit here, and through him, the americans, it is not because he is the father of non-violent revolution, but because much of the world has been trained, via Mickey Mouse, the Justice League, and the mess of american media, to discount sources of insight from all sources unless it nicely wrapped in the star-splattered banner. So an idea is not worthy, even if it exists, unless it spews forth from the great white overlord of the west. When the leaders of non-violent revolutionary movements go and visit this fella Gene, it’s like as if they are seeking his blessing in the eyes of the people that they hope to lead. It’s something like the ‘Holy Roman Emperor’ in the past being anointed by the Pope so as to indicate that God favoured his rule (and exploitation) of the people. It’s like having your picture taken with a ‘celeb’ that enables people to say, ‘hey, i’m a somebody because i’m with this guy, so i’m better than you.” And when they can go and meet this guy Gene, they can say, “hey, i know better than you, so do as i say.” It’s not that they didn’t already know what they were going to do before that. For instance, look at what this bimbo had to say,

“After recent allegations of vote rigging in her home country of Gabon, supermodel and activist Gloria Mika travelled to Boston to meet Sharp.

"I felt like I was going to meet the main man in terms of non-violent resistance in the world," she says. "It was important because some of the Gabonese were talking about a violent option. They were saying, let's go and kill some people and I was able to say: 'Hang on guys there's another option here.'"

Get the point? Is it any wonder why the BBC uses the word, ‘pilgrimage’ in the excerpt above? You are supposed to be one step closer to heaven after a pilgrimage even if you are after as you were before.

But the truth of the matter is that the west is bringing back ‘the great man theory’ - that historical movement and events are due to the work of ‘great’ good or evil people. This is a ploy to ensure that people are easily led by single individuals as opposed to rational and scientific thought. So ‘terrorism’ is the brain-child of an Osama. Saddam was likened to Stalin. The american president, and america in general, is like Spiderman vs the Green Goblin of evil - i thought it interesting that spiderman was paired with the american 'red, white, and blue' whilst fighting the 'Green Goblin' during the earlier period of the 'war on terror' given that green is a colour associated with Muslims. I wonder how many appreciated this point. And anyone notice how the americans produced quite a lot of these superhero movies from 119 onward. It serves to strengthen the people's tendency to discount all sociological, historical, and psychological causes of evil so that people wouldn’t as reflexively look at the causes behind global evils and just think it the work of a bunch of evil and elusive men. Sociology, psychology, history, science, has nothing to do with anything. It is only superHeroes and superVillains.

What we ought to do is to redistribute the power of an icon to other historical icons, and to the ‘nobodies’ of our own times as well. This enables us to access perspectives from otherwise discounted significant people and populations of our own time and the times of yore. That is the only we way we are going to be able to protect ourselves against being led by those nose by celebrities, and through them, the elite.
So they are putting forth this american fella Gene as an icon, a ‘superhero’ of democratic movements. What next, get him to put on a cape and wear thongs over his pants? And guess what. Democratic movements throughout the world might also hold up this ‘celebrity’ as an icon to rally the people - just like so-called celebrities are used to promote products from anti-aging creams to overpriced coffee. That doesn’t mean that they, or the people, didn’t already know their options before reading the book. That doesn’t mean that they might not already hold in their minds the examples of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, or the peaceful philosophies are some Islamic denominations. And those whom are against these movements might also present Gene as the ‘superVillain’ behind civil strife. What they are all doing is seeking a celebrated icon to promote or put down mass movements. Those whom are against it will point to these icons as the cause for civil unrest so as to deny that there is a real social or historical cause for it that might lay the fault at their door. And those whom use these icons to rally the people, paradoxically, whilst attempting to validate the significance of the people through democratic movements, also devalue them by giving undue credit to some american or 'celeb'. This is how such icons sometimes tend to become overvalued at the expense of the value of the people, their plight, and other sources for their intelligence.

But please, just because we chose to meet at the water fountain before a night out doesn’t make that water fountain the mother of all night outs. Icons may be rallying points. But the moment we forget that, we become putty in the hands of such icons - like how people are easily led by celebrities or overly-celebrated people like the americans. In fact, people might even begin to stop thinking for themselves and await the instructions of their superhero gods. And they call themselves ‘secular’. What a joke. What we ought to do is to redistribute the power of an icon to other historical icons, and to the ‘nobodies’ of our own times as well. This enables us to access perspectives from otherwise discounted significant people and populations of our own time and the times of yore. That is the only we way we are going to be able to protect ourselves against being led by those nose by celebrities, and through them, the elite.


ed