From Protest to Street Theater

In the course of history of the United States, the large scale protest has been something that, until modern times, was a rare happening and not an everyday event. Even such a protest or organizational group as ACTUP has problems getting past the 20th century for the basis of mass protests:

The use of nonviolence runs throughout history. There have been numerous instances of people courageously and nonviolently refusing cooperation with injustice. However, the fusion of organized mass struggle and nonviolence is relatively new. It originated largely with Mohandas Gandhi in 1906 at the onset of the South African campaign for Indian rights. Later, the Indian struggle for complete independence from the British Empire included a number of spectacular nonviolent campaigns. Perhaps the most notable was the year-long Salt campaign in which 100,000 Indians were jailed for deliberately violating the Salt Laws.

And the Salt March of 1930 consisted of 78 people walking 240 miles after informing the British Viceroy of the actual protest and ended with about 60,000 individuals in jail. Looking a bit further back we can get the Haymarket Riot of May 1886, which was small in its starting point, but would encompass 350,000 people or so, thus moving the marker into the 19th century for mass protests, many of them inspired by Anarchists. Much of this is inspired by Henry David Thoreau's writing on civil disobedience and the non-legitimacy of government, but some traces its roots back to Taoism and earlier Greek times. One can also go through the history of Britain, say, and find almost perennial revolts against taxation and land takings and such that dot the historical record. So these things, while not unfamiliar in the historical context, are quite common today.

The fact that one can point to the common happening of mass protests also does something else to them: it delegitimizes them.

When a large protest against a social ill is done as a 'one time' event or part of a long series of ongoing events with a *single* aim and it is clearly demonstrated as to what that aim actually IS, then mass protests serve as a rallying point for public opinion. The marches and protests for Civil Rights in the US or the Ghandi inspired protests of India both had points to clearly make about representation and social responsibility. For the US it was to actually *adhere* to the Constitution and do more than give wording to equality for blacks, it was to actually *enforce* and *carry out* those laws so that all of the People would be heard. In India it was to remove the British Crown Rule and restore local rule so that India could be an autonomous Nation and not a colony. These are valid and substantial protests over basic and fundamental principles of how Nations are established and run and are made to wake the Nation or Nations involved that they are not upholding the social compact that they have put forth.

The argument can be made that there must be a 'social consciousness' about these issues and that the protests were to 'uplift' said 'consciousness'. In fact the exact opposite is true: these protestations and movements were to SHAME the Nation involved into doing the 'right thing'. In the US to force Governments to actually UPHOLD the law, and in India to force Britain to come to terms with the fact that colonial rule is contrary to the spread of liberty and freedom and does not allow for cognizance of local customs or society - it is, in short, a form of tyranny.

In the US, however, the Civil Rights movement soon led to the belief that mass marches can, indeed, change society. This conception of social or group power is one that is put forth by socialist ideals and is part of an internationalist movement to redefine the entirety of the world into social groups. This is called Transnationalism. And its first successful appearance was in the late 1960's in the United States in the protests against the war in Viet Nam. The reason for entry into Viet Nam was part of the Truman Doctrine of Containment of Communism, which is the underlying force of Transnationalism conception. By having a number of weak Nation States in South East Asia, President Eisenhower realized that increasing Communist support against local governments was a threat to this policy. Later President Kennedy would have the elected ruler of South Viet Nam killed and have a successor installed which would then be supported by increasing US presence there. There is some question on exactly how President Kennedy viewed the conflict and the future role of the US in it, but his assassination cut that short and President Johnson took up the Cold War mantle and escalated the conflict. While the means may or may not have been good ones, he saw that support of a beleaguered Ally that was embroiled in a Civil War had to be done to keep the Truman Doctrine in-place. The slowly building protests against the legitimacy of the means called the Doctrine itself into question by those doing the protesting, and they were composed of mostly younger individuals, leftist ideologues and those looking to 'cash in' on the baby boom generation for ideological purposes.

These protests were able to bring about an end to US involvement in Viet Nam, but only to the harsh death toll that followed in South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, all directly attributable to the spread of totalitarian Communism in the area. Without the US to back its Ally, these protesters who 'felt bad' about involvement of the US 'imposing' itself were the main causation factor to the spread of totalitarianism and death in South East Asia. In addition to causing withdrawal of the US, the entire military establishment was shaken by the removal of support for the common ideal of supporting Friends and Allies by actually helping them. The movement to an all-volunteer force, which was typific of the US Armed Forces before the World Wars and in the inter war period, returned the Nation to the Citizen Soldier. An entire generation of the military, however, grew up with the problematical situation of not being seen as an upholder of liberty for the Republic and having their service belittled widely. The scorn and deep distrust that the protesters put in-place during the Viet Nam era still have lingering shadows and have given rise to 'moral equivalency' between State based military and non-State based terrorists.

With this 'victory' the protesters wanted to continue on to 'other' consciousness raising efforts... but those had hard problems gaining traction in the United States. But protests and rallies didn't stop, and were seen for the Equal Rights Amendment, against US involvement in multiple Nations (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada, to name a few), against nuclear weapons, against nuclear power plants... well the list of protest marches in Washington, DC tells the tale. Before 1963 there were a total of exactly 4 mass protests in the DC. Starting in 1963 to 2005 there have been 20 protests.

Thus in the first 176 years of the Republic, give or take a few days, there were only 4 protests worth bringing to the National Attention via protesting in DC. In the last 42 years there have been 20. And this does not even *begin* to hit the equivalent rise of protests overseas. And the singular Civil Rights march on DC was to bring a series of smaller and localized protests and marches that had already been seen via the National media to square and pointed focus. On the flip side for the Viet Nam protests, they *started* in DC to get coverage and expand protests. This was not the 'grass roots' rising up that the Left wants to portray, but a top down series of protests that starts with a large number of disaffected wishing to make more people disaffected and grabbing headlines to do so.

Today the ability to gather hundreds, thousands or, indeed, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals for a rally or 'protest' has migrated from valid uprising of social problems that need to be addressed at a National scale to something known as 'street theater' en mass. Getting large number of individuals now is supposed to give 'legitimacy' to a movement by demonstrating how many people one can turn out. Totalitarian regimes do this regularly either at gunpoint or through coercion, and the record number of protests of individuals in totalitarian regimes showing their 'support' for some governmental position at gun point is given the exact same moral equivalency of individuals working a decade or more to change laws and bring injustice to the forefront and culminate in something that represents a Nation-wide concept.

Thus the moral equivalency of those that have put years of effort into doing something that they see as 'right' so as to uphold a National viewpoint, put their lives on the line in many cases, often endanger careers or social scorn, and live a life so as to demonstrate that the ideals of a Nation are worth upholding are given the *exact same* credence as those that are told that if they do NOT show up they will either be killed, lose their job, be harassed or beaten, have family members tortured... and on and on...

Further, spending time to put on a protest or some such within a few days of an event does *not* demonstrate anything but an ability to get an ideological *base* out to protest. No social discussion of events have taken place, instead a pre-determined result template is instantiated and the protest is brought to media spotlight to make the world aware of how much that ideological base asserts its control... over its adherents, not the greater society as a whole. These individuals, given signs or shirts or banners to hold and walk around with are made to look like they are actually there as part of their wider society while, in point of fact, they are there for THEMSELVES and trying to assert their CONTROL of the media so as to give APPEARANCE that they are a significant portion of the population.

The latest of these is from Moqtada al-Sadr in Baghdad turning out approximately 100,000 individuals in Baghdad. But, as we see from a local on the scene, numbers do *not* tell the whole story (Omar at Iraq the Model)[bolding mine]:

Let's look at it from this angle; Saddam enjoyed the same, if not more, popularity than Sadr does today (yes, Saddam was popular among more or less a million Iraqis not to mention popularity among other Arabs) and the same applies to Nesrallah, Ahmedinejad and Bin Laden who have millions of supporters among Arabs and Muslims, however we didn't find it difficult to "demonize" them, right?

I mean should we allow the bad guys to grow more powerful just because they are popular?! This is totally absurd. . .

According to this "senior official" we are supposed to think twice and be careful before tackling people like Sadr but my question is; if not now then when? Are we supposed to give them more time to grow more powerful and more popular?
We have seen some examples in recent history when crazy tyrants were not dealt with fast enough or powerfully enough whether by an external force or by their own people; putting an end to Saddam would've been easier if the decision was made in 1991 and dealing with Ahmedinejad immediately will be easier than to deal with him when he acquires nukes and disarming the Sadr militias would've been much more easier if the right decision was made two years ago.

After all, popularity polls do not necessarily reflect the truth and today's demonstration indicates that as well; see, instead of the million figure that Sadr was aspiring to see in Baghdad and out of supposedly 2 million Shia residents of Sadr city only 100 000 showed up and that's only after Sadr summoned demonstrators from the southern provinces and sent busses to fetch them and let's not forget that the demonstration took place in Sadr's own stronghold where it's supposed to take no effort from supporters to show up and march; technically they were asked to march in their own front yard.

Let's suppose that the 30 seats that Sadr's followers have in the parliament reflect his popularity, which is not true because they wouldn't have a chance to win 30 seats without joining the UIA and without Sistani backing them, but even then we have most of the remaining powers demanding immediate disbanding of militias. And these are the ones we should consider, not controversial polls of false popularity.

Some Iraqis including their elected prime minister and elected president said 'thank you America' while others said death to America and Iran is strongly supporting those who wish death to America, so what are you in America going to do while we still have the chance, still have the determined leadership and while there's still hope?

Will you stand with those who believe you came to help them, or will you let Iran remain free to push Iraq to doom?

So, what does the 100,000 mean? It is support that al-Sadr can get from his *base* and NOT an assertion for/against whatever the topic du jour is. In point of fact it is a petty tyrant exercising his powers to try and gain National and International legitimacy by turning out his base of support.

And then we see a Nation like Iran where the population is under strict control and any spontaneous street violence is either met with harsh reprisals... or nothing because it is given *sanction* by the regime or even started by it (Iran Focus):

Tehran, Iran, Aug. 04 - Radical Islamists attacked the British embassy in Tehran on Friday and called for the expulsion of the British ambassador from Iran.

Dozens of hard-liners gathered in front of the embassy compound following Friday prayers in the Iranian capital holding up signature-yellow flags of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah.

They threw stones at the embassy building, shattering several windows, and tore down the embassy plaque on the gates of the compound.

Several British flags were set on fire during the demonstration.

They were protesting what they said was British support for the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah forces in Lebanon.

The group also chanted slogans against several international human rightorganizationsns, accusing them of failing to oppose the violence in Lebanon.

Now mind you, Iran is directly supporting Hezbollah with equipment, money and sending over trainers to help them use equipment. So this is *not* some spontaneous street protest: it is a staged event by the regime in power. Compare that to this set of protests that no one heard about because it was under-reported in the MSM (thank you to Gateway Pundit):

The Southern Azerbaijan National Revival Movement (SANRM) bureau in Baku told APA that before the clash with Iranian police, the demonstrators, who were protesting against the caricature published by the newspaper "Iran", burnt the newspaper bureau in Urmiya. Eastern Azerbaijan governor called on the protesters to calm down. But they attacked the Urmiya TV and Radio Company in Kashani Avenue. Special forces and police forces trying to disperse the demonstrators fired at. (Picture PanArmenian News) Some demonstrators are reported to have been injured and some killed. Special troops managed to disperse the protesters in Marand city. Police forces beat the protesters in Abrasan square in Tabriz.

Quite a difference, isn't it? Here a protest NOT sanctioned by the regime gets punished and punished hard... but something that *is* sanctioned has police just standing around. Also note that these are the Special Forces or Basij doing the work, and most likely not the local police. The Basij are the thugs of the Iranian regime, out to enforce all the edicts all the way down to dress code, and to round up children to send in human wave attacks through minefields. Lovely folks, no?

So, what is the moral equivalence between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Moqtada al-Sadr?

No, really! If you are equating numbers turned out to be support and that there is moral equivalence based on pure numbers or even proportionality, then Moqtada al-Sadr and MLK, Jr. should have some sort of *exact* equivalence morally...

And remember that Doctor King wanted to have people judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character. So no 'brown people' racism, please.

Personally, I find the one that wanted to UPHOLD the Nation and its laws and ensure due process to be on much higher and firmer ground than a mere thug getting his sycophants out to show how much they support him. But then I place trust only in numbers that are meaningful, not Street Theater. Doctor King spent hard years working to invest his view with the Nation and slowly bring about the understanding that to uphold the Constitution all of those that fall under its purview must be given due process of law. Moqtada al-Sadr is trying to demonstrate by force that he IS the law and wishes to impose it on all of Iraq.

I find Doctor King to have much, much more character than Moqtada al-Sadr. He is *just* a character and treats everyone around him as less than that.

That is what the 'moral equivalence' concept gets you. If you make that argument, this is the exact thing you support without any weasel words: Uplifting a Nation and Subjugating a Nation would be EXACT equivalents.

Analyses of the intertwining of players in the Middle East

My thanks to Wretchard at The Belmont Club for a tip to this NRO piece Tehran & Damascus Move to Lebanon by Walid Phares.

[Note: reworking this review from a previous review, so not all grammer and argumentative agreements have been cross-checked at this point.]

In this piece Mr. Phares puts forth the concept that jihadism against the West was given vent in the 1990's by al Qaeda, amongst other groups, and that a basic agreement between Sectarian and Secular regimes to incite terror and promote it was done by a "Khumeinist-Baathist axis". This axis properly stretches from Tehran through Baghdad to Damascus and then onto Lebanon. He then posits that another axis represents a Salafist-Wahabbist coalition that included al Qaeda. As a concept for basis of argument it is rough, but has some service to it.

The Ba'athist regimes in Syria and Iraq were more than ready to support an 'umbrella' of anti-Western terrorism, as witness the support of Saddam for training terrorists of nearly every stripe from Africa, Europe, Middle and Far East, and South America. Syria, more of an economic basketcase with territory under it, was a weak regime looking for support externally and wanting to *not* be considered as a client state of Saddam. While both regimes were Ba'athist in origin, the Alawite leadership of Syria was not willing to jeopardize its position by being a strong adherent to either Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia. Hafez al-Assad did a hard dance to keep all potential partners in the loop, but none of them held close for long term dancing. He even went so far as to go to North Korea for technology that would have been too dear to buy from Iran due to religious entanglements. Better a secular regime without scruples and no interest in Syrian politics rather than a local regime that had eyes on expansionism and would put dear strings onto anything bought by Syria.

All of that said these regimes could come to 'common cause' and cooperation on Lebanon for the support of Iranian backed Hezbollah there and the co-opting of the Lebanese government. Syria would like to reclaim Lebanon as a province, Iran as a client state and Iraq under Saddam as a place to further the media coverage against the West and possibly demonstrate his leadership abilities in support of Arabs against the Jews. So these conflicting goals of State expansion, Influence expansion and erosion of Western willpower coalesced in Lebanon. While there is commonality of short term goals the longer term goals are highly different.

What is left out of this? al Qaeda.

al Qaeda as an organization was none too keen on actual territorial goals nor on expansion of anything save terrorism and bringing down the Nation State system in the Middle East so as to start up the Caliphate again. In this they have common goal with Iran, but have different end-state regimes in sight. The furtherance of those ends was only going to be minimally served by Lebanon, although it was a great 'talking point' by the al Qaeda leadership. In point of fact al Qaeda was expanding its internetworking of terrorist organizations on a large scale, using the Iraqi conception for the failed later attacks after the first WTC bombing and then trying to join those into a Grand Scale terrorist attack in the Bojinka plot, which failed due to overcomplexity. al Qaeda, far from supporting this Iran-Iraq-Syria axis was, in point of fact, looking for an ongoing methodology for successful terror attacks that got away from suicide bombers and one-time attacks by individuals. This I call the Template of Terror. And it is not *aimed* at the Middle East, although it certainly draws upon it, but is aimed at the more technologically capable Nations of the world, so as to use their own technological infrastructure as a weak point for attack.

This does not mean that al Qaeda is not interested in the Middle East, but, instead, requires it in a certain state of affairs to draw support *from* it. That state of affairs was supported by the Iran-Iraq-Syria cooperative axis and so long as they were able to hold the status quo, al Qaeda had no reason to join nor interfere with them, although it was more than willing to accept training and supplies form them. The al Qaeda attack on the US on 9/11 did *not* grow out of the Iranian based axis, but, instead, grew out of a fantastical ideology that expected the US to collapse under its own weight due to a pinprick attack. As Lee Harris encapsulates this well, I will use his words from PolicyReview online (mirror link)[bolding mine]:

This theme of reviving ancient glory is an important key to understanding fantasy ideologies, for it suggests that fantasy ideologies tend to be the domain of those groups that history has passed by or rejected groups that feel that they are under attack from forces which, while more powerful perhaps than they are, are nonetheless inferior in terms of true virtue.

In this fantastic view of the world al Qaeda does not see the US or the West in general as populated by people, but as props that can be manipulated on a global stage and tipped over due to this simplistic interpretation of them. To al Qaeda the US, or indeed the entire system of Nation States, are *not* systems or States but things given by Allah as temporary challenges to the true believer that can be overcome via the jihadi resistance. The regime in Tehran *also* supports this to a large extent, although they do have a somewhat firmer grasp of the Nation State system they wish to dissolve and expand into. The dreams of Caliphate are thus common in root and orientation, but grasp of the world is lacking to greater or lesser degree in both. Nations do *not* serve a legitimate purpose and are mere simple constructs that can easily be brought down and under control.

From a realist standpoint, with some grasp of geopolitics, the al Qaeda attacks were ill-timed for geopolitical reasons, but made coherent sense and timing within a fantastical viewpoint of the world in which this act of jihad would bring the might of the larger universal force to bear and topple the giant United States and, soon, the rest of the world. Iran did not seem to care overmuch for the timing when it happened, either, and but they *also* expected this to seriously degrade the West or even put the US into permanent turmoil. Syria and Iraq, however, while giving lip-service to such things, were not ready to throw their weight and support behind global jihad and had a good idea of the response that al Qaeda was going to get. By cooperating with those that had a fantastical outlook on the world, Syria and Iraq now found themselves unable to move out from the spotlight that was called upon that outlook. Within the Iran-Iraq-Syria axis a difference of viewpoint led to somewhat different views on results of activities.

From the perspective of the Nation attacked, however, there was the expectation that any group or Nation so bold as to attack the United States would *follow it up*. Previous 20th century warfare demanded that in large scale conflicts, and the short lull in the days after the attack waiting 'for the other shoe to drop' slowly left and the realization that this was the BEST that could be offered and that there was no coherent *plan* for destruction in place. This led to the US counter-attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, the first to remove the direct State support for al Qaeda and the second to break into the noxious centroid of the Middle East and break down the interior supply and support lines for terrorism and plant something different to replace fantastical world outlooks. This would break the stasis of the Middle East that had been present since the start of the Cold War and had not shifted once that conflict ended.

Unlike Mr. Phares I do not see this as a cooperating 'tree of jihad' but different fantastical world views at work with different means and motives, seeking support from others that will give common cause for their own reasons. The Iran-Iraq-Syria axis did not support 9/11 by attacks afterwards for the simple fact that they were not put 'in the loop' by distrustful al Qaeda that had its OWN reasons for staging such attacks. Iraq had proven plenty capable in the early 1990's to coordinate between terrorist organizations and would have served that purpose had al Qaeda *trusted* it to do so. al Qaeda, however, had their own viewpoint on how to work terrorism and had successfully used their Template previously and were using it for individual larger scale attacks and did not want nor need the interference of this 'axis' in its operations. While holding some commonality of goals and contacts with this other axis, it had differentiated itself via means and methodology *from* that axis. While Islam may be a root to both of these phenomena, one axis turned towards traditional Nation States for support while the other aligned itself to the distributed network of Transnational Terrorists for its support.

The US in removing the truly fantastical Taliban and the extremely heard-headed Ba'athist regime in Iraq dealt a dual blow to the fantastical world of al Qaeda and the somewhat better rooted world-view of the Iran-Iraq-Syrian axis. Further the removal of Iraq made the connection between Iran and Syria obvious while before it had been masked by the overwhelming presence of Saddam's Iraq. al Qaeda continues to be a threat as witness the Madrid, London and Mumbai bombings and continues to deploy its template freely. The Iran-Syria axis, however, has been dealt a harsh blow and both poured in funds and fighters to Iraq in an attempt to destabilize the Nation and force it either to break apart or to re-coalesce into a totalitarian state either under Ba'athist or fantastical Islamic conceptions. Syria was the weak link in supply and funds and while their fighters proved more capable they were the ones targeted to be driven out by the riverine operations that finally went to the northwest and terminated at the Syrian border. Passage of individuals, arms and funds via the rivers of Iraq became extremely difficult and the final strongholds were taken out this year, in which large amounts of arms and material were seized, but fighters to actually *use* them were lacking. Iran was playing a steadier game of influencing internal politics in Iraq, via al-Sadr and his sectarian militia, and influenced elections in Iraq to a greater or lesser extent. Their hope is that through terror attacks, sectarian violence and general mayhem, that Iraq can be destabilized and turned into a client State, or at least have that happen to the southern region so as to give Iran direct access and borders with Saudi Arabia. Again, Iraq is a pawn and *not* filled with real people, but objects to be manipulated via this viewpoint. Iraq is a *potential resource* for trying to assert the Caliphate by using the populace of that Nation to the ends of Iranian influence.

al Qaeda, during this, was forced into a problematical position of claiming to be the 'strong horse' while being trampled upon. Further, after the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq, they were starting to look as if they could not comprehend what had befallen the Middle East by their actions. In a scramble to keep some semblance of the local Taliban going and spread influence to gain power locally, they set themselves up in non-controlled provinces of Pakistan and mended fences with Iran. No love was ever held between these two to be lost, and al Qaeda now saw that their support was going to be declining as world banking moved against obvious assets and large cash flows. As al Qaeda works years to put its large scale methodology based attacks into action, those of Madrid and London appear to have been in near-complete stages and carried through upon, while Mumbai seems of more recent vintage with al Qaeda expending resources into Pakistan and India for support of it. By being seen as the *cause* of the fall of Iraq, al Qaeda thus had to make good its outlook and actually move more support to its base within Iraq. So al Qaeda funding and attention now subdivided further to cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iraq, and all of its previously planned attacks. All the while the trickle of individuals it was sending into Iraq were not coming back and its leadership was being picked off piecemeal via standard police and intelligence operations.

To backtrack a bit, the fall of Iraq was a harsh blow to fantastical outlook on Pan Arabism, as well, as Saddam took up that mantle of being the 'great uniter' of Arab States and looked to be the Leader of the Arab World. State based socialism of the International (Communist) variety had been dealt a severe and apparently permanent setback with the collapse of the USSR, although its Transnationalist conceptions still plague the world. Nationalist State based socialism (fascism) was successfully transplanted into the Middle East during the period from the late 1930's to the late 1940's, so even when the exemplar States of this fell in Italy and Germany, the conception of it, being entirely *internal* to States remained as viable viewpoints for political parties. Ba'athism is a remnant of that, and by bringing down the prime example of that in the Middle East, National State socialism is *also* being heavily discredited which puts the Syrian regime at grave risk being the last adherent of that conception and of Pan Arabism. Their only uptick was that they held onto Lebanon.

In 2005 *that* ended and the final patina to National Socialism had worn off, demonstrating the true totalitarian Nature of it. Again, this was not a co-ordinated counter attack by the West, but a push to hold Nation States accountable for their activities and to get hostile Nations out of undermining and subverting *other* Nation States. Syria, already beset by problems in Iraq and being unable to exert any power *into* Iraq now was forced to withdraw from a *province*! Already having commonality of ties with Iran on the Iraq problem, this brought together Iran and Syria as *both* had lost face and power in Lebanon: Syria by direct loss, and Iran by having the diminishment of their directed group, Hezbollah, given only standard democratic representation and not controlling voice in that Nation. Both of these Nations worked hard to undermine Lebanon's nascent political system and subvert it. To properly do that required arm twisting, threats and reinforcing Hezbollah from the outside with more and better Iranian manufactured arms and training from various sources outside of Iran.

In the timing of the resurgence of Hezbollah, I do agree with Mr. Phares that it is to distract attention from Iranian nuclear development and to take power in Lebanon by force of arms. Thusly the Cedar Revolution in his terms 'was failed' by outside forces seeking their own ends in restoring the status quo there. He squarely places blame for this undermining upon the political factions *within* Lebanon to the forces *outside* it and incubating within it. From there he launches into speculation on current activities and their possible outcomes. But here I would also disagree on his viewpoint of the democratic process being 'failed' by outside forces and place the blame for this 'failing' upon the misunderstanding of democracy by the people of Lebanon. It is all well and good to point out particular politicians and their bent towards one State or another and the inherent problems of a nascent democracy to coalesce. This is common for democracies of any variety and always a problem for those trying to gain a modicum of stability for the political arrangement inside the Nation practicing it. It is not helped by external forces seeking to destabilize it and subvert it.

Not coming to terms with these problems and directly addressing them cannot, however much one wishes to do so, be placed at the feet of political leaders. Political leadership, in a democracy, must be a reflection of the will of the People practicing it. If imperfect politicians are being offered by political parties, the fault is *not* that of the parties to put them forth, it IS that of the People not to withhold their support from such parties and individuals and put forth OTHER individuals and parties that better represent them. In Lebanon the use of the old parties that were part of the Civil War before the Cedar Revolution necessarily compromises their current positions by being based upon the passions of that conflict and the political necessities of it. The People of Lebanon sought a path that would try to find some sort of stability by choosing 'the devil they knew' and put hope upon their assertion of willpower, via the ballots, to ensure that such will was expressed. They had not learned the hard and harsh fact of democracy: it is *not* a system to generate stability but to gain commonality via instability.

Democracy is not *made* to be a stable system, but one that in being unstable in known ways so it can properly reflect the will of the People. In this democracy is not simple casting of votes, but deciding upon the direction of the Nation from the lowest level up to that of the National through the representational choices made by individuals at the ballot box. Most such systems devolve upon two major parties to try and integrate broad and popular themes of the people into some commonality, but that is barely a rule of thumb and many democratic Nations have multi-lateral governments composed of many parties and governments that regularly rise and fall as the will of the People coalesces for some time and then shifts to as the political atmosphere changes. Italy, through much of its post-WWII period is emblematic of this with governments rising and falling often as internal social turmoil is reflected by National politics. By accepting the *process* of elections and the validity of results, the Nation State changes to be better suited to the people within it. This is rarely, if ever, done with the very FIRST ballot cast by the People.

Iraq, as counterpoint, is getting used to this idea of elections having meaning and being meaningful as a *process*. The insurgency and sectarian violence is trying to undermine the *process* of democratic outlook and return popular outlook to that of all-powerful strongmen,warlords and imams. Establishing this process can take years if not decades. For example, even after the Constitution of the United States was put in place in 1787 the prime fault line of that document over slavery erupted into Civil War a bit over 7 DECADES later. The Nation was meta-stable during that interim and the threat and problems of slavery hung over the Nation as a cloud, being hotly contested again and again as time wore on. The Nation *knew* this would not last and it was a question of not *if* there would be a war, but *when* and *how bad*.

The Lebanese People expected *instant* results and then peace and freedom.

They had NO history of the process of democracy and had unrealistic expectations of it.

Their neighbor and the regional power it was aligned with *both* wanted to use Lebanon to their own purposes and regain the *legitimacy* of those purposes. Of course they both twisted the imperfect individuals of the political process to their wills to meet these ends. The people of Lebanon failed themselves by NOT holding their politicians directly accountable for their LACK of activity and for giving into the demands of these foreign powers within their Nation. By not paying attention and holding the politicians feet to the fire via the political process, it is not the fault of ruthless autocrats and fantastical believers to take advantage of the situation. It is directly the fault of the People not remove legitimacy at the first HINT that this was happening. By not paying attention and having had their wonderful parade revolution and not investing time and effort into building the *process* that *process* failed them.

And into this vacuum we now have a new coalescing of forces and axes with al Qaeda and Hamas joining Hezbollah, but worrying that they are being co-opted by Iran. Syria is proving to be a client state with little more to offer than as resupply point and gathering point for terrorist activities into the region. The Wahhabi Imams have forcefully *denounced* Hezbollah and require its followers to offer it NOTHING, and so al Qaeda risks its donors in this activity, but perhaps they have lined up Venezuelan support to replace *that*. We hear grumblings of a possible Shia/Sunni sectarian coalition in Baghdad to attack the government there, not realizing that they then turn themselves into instant targets by all that support the government and will delegitimize themselves in the *process* of democracy that is being built.

In all I find what Mr. Phares to say as interesting in giving a quick gloss to the complexity of the Middle East and not another conspiracy concept which is extremely common in that region. Offering a new venue for conspiracy theories misdirects attention from deeper analysis and offers simplistic solutions instead of reasoning via actions and stated National goals. Simple analysis which takes in multiple factors ends up with multivariate and complex analyses based upon guiding principles of identifying the interests of players and then seeing how they perform actions upon those interests. I disagree with the tree conception he puts forth, but am otherwise in agreement on the shifting coalescing of forces. Conspiracy theories offer simplistic overview of the problems of the region and engender themselves of ignoring the totality of the problem space involved. A more in-depth analysis allows for a review of multiple ways to approach the greater problem without resorting to a conspiratorial viewpoint that can only say results are because of one thing or small collection of them. Actions on the inter-Nation scale are rarely that simple to identify when multiple State and non-State actors and players are at work. In this review of activities in the Middle East the commonality of results does not confer commonality of end point nor commonality of starting viewpoint for those actions, but gives a wider problem review space and allows for alternate renderings of activities to give them greater depth and meaning while eschewing the simplistic conspiracy concept for them.

Simple outlooks that are extended and integrated lead to complex results and final analysis.

Simplistic analyses most often point towards preconceived notions of what the results mean, instead of letting the actions speak for themselves.

Bill O'Reilly warns of the rise of the machine

"The Internet has drastically changed the way news reaches the public ... but our leaders have not figured that out yet. Misinformation and false analysis is instantly out there and sometimes widely accepted by people getting their information from machines." - Bill O'Reilly Talking Points Memo on The O'Reilly Factor.

Oh, my! That caused a bit of vituperation and laughter from me last night. Mr. O'Reilly is often good for his net inanity, but this one really does take the cake. Bolding in the above, mine, of course. After that he goes on to his favorite topics of what people *should* be concerned about... but think about that for just a moment.

I was watching Mr. O'Reilly on television... a device with microelectronics, display circuitry, storage and multifunction input device. Pretty much a computer in this day and age, but even before now it was and remains.... A Machine!

Painful, huh? Now, did you talk with a friend over the telephone and exchange views and information? Would you believe you got information from... A Machine!

How about radio programs and music over the airwaves? Yes, you need a radio or other device to change those electromagnetic oscillations into something human comprehensible. You need... A Machine!

Newspapers and magazines are printed by large presses, and when you read THEM you get information from... A Machine!

That book you read recently (or not so recently depending upon your nature)? Similarly printed up (unless you read a hand illuminated manuscript from the middle ages) by.... A Machine!

Owners manual from your car? Yes, not only is the car a machine, but the manual was made by... A Machine!

That CD or DVD for your computer or home CD/DVD player? Yes, it was stamped and etched and packaged and encoded by... A Machine!

Trust *none of it*!

Run to a cave and live in darkness!

Wait for the town crier to tell you the news, as he only gets it *mostly* wrong!

Why Mr. O'Reilly trusts *some* machines and not others is beyond me....

We now return you to your regularly scheduled loofah.

The Long Road

"The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions." - variously Samuel Johnson, Karl Marx and others.

In 1948 a land was divided so as to make home for a people without one for generations. Perhaps a good intention and a paving brick on that long road, but in that division the World got to see how two basic approaches to having a home were done.

One looked upon that first brick and realized that it should lay and rest and not be built around but built *away* from. They industriously set about claiming their land, setting up a government, raising a flag and properly arming a military and giving them uniforms and cause to protect their people.

The other measured that brick and then decided more should be added as no good intention should go unpunished. And once some few of those bricks were made, why one could start picking them up to throw at those building away from the started pathway. No need for government nor industry nor regular military, one could just assert that the land around the brick was truly *yours* and do nothing with it save to hate this other that was making something of it. Cry out 'we are victims' and then continually victimize yourself and make nothing of yourself to *prove* how cruel this other really is. And perhaps you could convince others in the neighborhood to make more bricks and then plead outwards on the injustice of your brick path that you were constructing and how the *others* were *forcing* you along that path by their very presence of not being upon it.

Thus this other people that builds nothing save bricks to hell complain that it is all they know how to make. And so they gain *sympathy* for being *oppressed* by making nothing of themselves. Indeed this is a *group* that is a victim, not just some agglomeration of people that have come together to make a home, but a victimized group that could not stand the fact that they would have to be in a NEIGHBORHOOD with others making homes next to them. They forget that together they and these other people *complained* about exterior occupation from a distant land... and once given freedom to make something *for* yourself they had no teaching on how to do so. Which is strange because the others learned how to do so, even as their people moved in to help from distant lands so that home could be secured.

Why did this other people make much of their being unable because they are unwilling?

Because it gained them stature with those that had bleeding hearts and weeping minds and intellect born of pearly heights and notions of Nations being a *problem*. They found that they could make common cause so that this people could gain further stature by getting intellectual backing and help tear at what makes individuals secure by creating group identity. From dreams of World Government headed by those who *knew* better, there came a realization that they could *prove* their wisdom by helping a people who were making themselves into a self-created victim. Support THAT and then their victimhood could be played upon forevermore and no slight against them ever forgotten to *prove* how they should get all that they see as theirs. In fact this *victimized* people could do no wrong....

Welcome to the world of Transnational Progressivism and its hideous offspring Transnational Terrorism. By the time 1965 rolled around and the PLO *finally* understood that being an armed and raging victim won the hearts and minds and sympathies of academics who would speak out *for* their atrocities and *apologize* for them, the world has seen a spreading of terrorism globally. Terrorism *did* exist before then, but it was a minor and National thing, rarely crossing borders and confined to localized ethnic, governmental, and social terms. Wilsonianism created an idea of a larger organizing body *over* governments, and this then weakened the primacy of the Nation State. In that weakening the bonds that kept Nation States in order, for all its faults and problems, were loosened and problems had to gain higher *international agreement*. But, many didn't like the idea that they would actually have to work out agreements and this soon became a coalescing point for those wishing to spread disagreement, suffering and dissolve the will of other peoples so that tyranny could spread.

These are the cornerstones of Transnational Progressivism:

Groups are the primary division amongst mankind - not Nations - and once born into a group you will live within that group, fairness is equality of result - not of opportunity - and only groups get results with individuals garnering only what the group gets because hard work for oneself is not rewarded,

Being a victim is politically significant and is the trump card against other groups and individuals, assimilation of culture is evil as it destroys group identity and allows allegiance to State ideals which are to be broken down by group identity and unimpeded migration,

Political power is apportioned via group percentages and thus does *not* require democracy,

National identity is the highest form of evil and patriotism is in, and of, itself the most toxic adherence that is promulgated within mankind.

And so in 1948 the adherence of a people to their group identity began, was pushed, flourished with nourishment from their common travelers and results in an odious spread of this conception that leads AWAY from individualism and TOWARDS the destruction of the Nation State. By actually FORMING a Nation State, the people of Israel were hated and still are, by the academics adhering to Transnational Progressivist ideals. If they only would have pitied themselves and made nothing of themselves... why, then they could be ADMINISTERED TO by the UN... just like the Palestinians and this idea of letting a common people form a Nation State could be put on the ash heap of history by *proving* that only victims should gain any adherence as groups and be elevated by the elite defining who they were.

Simple... to the point of simplistic.

All of the wonderful *intentions* to have 'cease-fires' and 'temporary agreements' to 'build to larger agreements' and have 'international conferences' and finally 'give peace to the Middle East' is mere verbiage for: give up being a Nation, give up your rights as individuals, plea for rescue by those *who know better*, and use any advantage you can to break the Nation State apart. Is it any wonder that Pan Arabism and Islamic Fundamentalism both find sustenance in these roots? Or that the dreams of Islamic Fundamentalists are given broad scope to a desired outcome?

There is a name for Transnational Progressivism that is, in actuality, much older than this current formation. Where groups are administered *to* and the highest formulation of democracy is in group ascendancy. Where the interaction between groups is moderated by an enlightened or endowed group over them. Where individual perserverence and success is looked down upon and one must take only what one gets in life by birth.

That is the Dream of Nobility.

That is the Dream of Empire.

The sponsoring of these conceptions is the road BACK to Imperialism, back to Anointed Leaders of Wisdom by Birth, back to serfdom, back to slavery, back to all things which have been worked AGAINST for centuries.

Intellectuals that rail against such things as Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and 'the occupation of Iraq' need to be held accountable for their absence in these very same problems that are happening on worse and deadlier scales in all of the non-democratic places on the planet that do not try to demonstrate that they adhere to *any* high ideals. So the media and intellectuals claim that in not meeting each and every high ideal and aspiration the West, and the United States in particular, is to *blame* for the world's problems, but those that have NO ideals and meet that lack are to be *praised* for their moral and ethical vacuum. By upholding the Western Traditions of the Sovereignty of a Nation State to protect its people, Israel is seen as the *destructive* force for REACTING to aggression. Those CAUSING killing and death get a *get out of moral defects for FREE* card and, in point of fact, get a sympathetic hearing from the media and intellectuals as these folks doing the killing are victims. And they never have to put that card BACK and can use it forevermore to kill, slaughter and act as barbarians.

And black is white. And right is wrong. Perhaps we should be asking the Big Brother of the Media and Intellectual communities just what the Imperial thought du jour is... which encourages barbarism and destruction and abdication of laws. These folks do not want the equality of the application of law, but equality of results. Thus *due process* gets you the same result no matter who is involved as their group identity precondemns individuals to guilt or innocence.

Perhaps we can go to this wonderful notion from Mrs. Clinton of it 'Taking a Village' to understand actions and work out what should be done, without, really, holding anyone responsible. She would like to see the entire world as The Village... where everyone is numbered and names are not allowed. Because names imply that there is something special about an individual, and you can't have *that* to get to equal results. And to hold someone *responsible*... well! Just not done! And perhaps we can all make up and sing some non-religious 'Kumbayah' and make it all *better*....

I do like villages, but the roots I look at are somewhat different from that of Mrs. Clinton and the Transnational Left and Terrorists. They would like to place a ruling order above mere villages and then administer TO them... While the villages I think of, out for the harsh lands of Scandinavia had a different view of Kings and Rulers... and the Thing of the Village gave Law to which even the Kings and Nobles were to adhere to. And that is the harsh recourse of democracy having its birth in the North and melding via cultures through Ireland, Scotland and then moving with them to a New World. The Law is supreme, not the Ruler, not the Church, not the Warlord, not the Emperor: all must adhere to the Law or offer something a damn sight better in its place and still ensure the equality of application of that replacement to EVERYONE and *includes* the Rulership.

Transnationalism is not only undemocratic and Imperial, but it promulgates no set Law, save that of the Group in power to do as they see *fit* to their underlings.

From this point I can only look to Winston Churchill for this road: "When marching through hell, don't stop."

To get to the other side of this self-imposed hell, we will have to give up this notion of Group supremacy and individual objectification. People are *not* objects. And they do not have rights as a Group, but only as Individuals... and the sole legitimate protector of those rights are Nation States.

And if you want to offer something ELSE, it had better damn well work for everyone and have equal application of the Law to all individuals. So we can judge a man by the content of his character and NOT the color of his skin.

Which will put us back with *just* the problems of Nation States where all of this began in 1914. At least we know WHY that failed. And now we know that larger international conceptions ALSO fail, putting us on a road back to Empires. Back to what works and see if we can't work it out from there....

Supporting Friends and Allies

Much has been made of supporting Friends and Allies by purchasing their goods, and I agree wholeheartedly! So this will be my ongoing post of good places to find goods either directly from a Nation or via a reseller that has such goods. There are many resellers for some of these around, but other things are just very, very hard to find. Also will be my dining out recommendations for things to look or ask for when out on the town.



Support Israel

Being a relatively Net savvy folk, they have quite a few sites online for many products of their fine Nation. So a simple search engine lookup will get you quite some number of hits. At this time I have only purchased from one site and will look to expand my horizons in a bit:

Zaramart

Now, if you are *also* looking for a good liqueur I recommend Sabra, which is orange-chocolate in flavor and a familial favorite since the 1970's. It is damn difficult to find from retailers and even large liquor stores. That said I have found one supplier that gets it in the US and recommend them for that and decent prices, and another that has it at something of a markup:

Hi-Time Wine - Use the Search box and type in Sabra... and for the rest of the Israeli goods, search for Israel
Table and Vine - Large selection, large markup. Search on Sabra and Israel.

Wally's Wine and Spirits - I have not bought from here, but they have a Coffee Sabra... search on Sabra

There is also a *mocha* version of Sabra which I have never tasted and believe it was a limited production run... haven't tasted it but from the quality of normal Sabra, I would think it would be delicious.



Support Denmark

Lots of lists and lists of lists available, but they all seem to get you to the same few places:

Danish Deli Food
Nordic House
Nordisk Import

Those you can find all over the place, but this one I have just found and ordered from, and will see how it goes. You will need an online currency converter and possibly some translation tools, but their prices are very reasonable as they support Danish Ex-Pats around the globe:

Danish ExPat Shopping - Which has very reasonable prices and no English available and currently their checkout system has gone south.

Hjemve - Is new to me, has a *huge* variety and is in English, ships worldwide so a new order to them has just been placed. Prices are not bad considering the work that went into the site.

Now Tuborg and Carlsberg beers are pretty easy to find, but for some more exotic things head back to our friends above. That said why anyone would miss out on aquavit is beyond me! Available from many Scandinavian Nations and many that are not, this is a distilled liquor with various flavors and can vary from extremely smooth to somewhat harsh and biting. I have enjoyed the Aalborg in both of its flavors, but particularly love the caraway aroma and smell of their standard.:

Hi-Time Wine - Use the Search box and type in Danish.. and for a treat try aqavit

I am trying to find a good way to get Cirkel Coffee from Denmark, or any of the local blends/grinds. Denmark is one of the highest per capita coffee consumers on the planet... think of them as the jittery and wide-awake folk. And like South Africa with beer, you cannot get the stuff outside of the Country, save for the larger domestic brands like Cirkel and Merrild. I have an order in for a variety of the second, and have found Cirkel to be a rich and smooth coffee but now find that there are some varieties of it. Good coffee is hard to find and I detest Starbucks for homebrew. And since the multinationals have bought into the major producers in Denmark I am desperately seeking out smaller and more local players for coffee. Because if their domestic products are any indication, they have a world to gain by advertising and shipping.

Finally, as to cheeses and such. You can find quite some number of local supermarkets that carry them. Check the label for Product of Denmark or Made and Produced in Denmark. More of those are always appreciated! Let the store manager *know* these things. And if you enjoy 'salt licorice', which is black licorice with a salt coating/taste, then Denmark is your Nation of choice. I cannot stand the stuff, and a friend who enjoys plain licorice says it would be excellent... without the salt. Buyer beware, assume all black licorice from Denmark is of the salt variety.




Support Poland

Poland has stood up to defend the West and beat back Islam ONCE already, at the Battle of Vienna. I have further thanked the Polish People for standing up to Communism and striking the blows necessary against it to crumble its base, and then to stand up *again* against the vituperative response of the Islamic world against the West. And NOW they stand up FOR ISRAEL and against Islamic Terrorism. I am sad to say that this is far more than the United States has done for its LONG-TIME ALLY. I proudly and with a tear in my eye salute the Free People of Poland, the first to consider themselves to BE a Free People in the World and the ones who can be defeated but NEVER VANQUISHED.

And you can find many goods from Poland at your supermarket, including such things as: beet borscht, sauerkraut, and even imported hams.

My favorite place to purchase foodstuffs was Ernie's Deli, but it is in the process of moving and so not available at the moment.

I have *not* purchased from the following, but recommend giving them a look:

Food From Poland, LLC
Polana
Pol-Store

Needless to say our friends from above are good links to find Polish liquor and beer:

Hi-Time Wine - Use the Search box and type in Poland
Table and Vine - Large selection and markup. Search on Poland

You can find many fine Polish vodkas at your local liquor supplier, so best to check them out first. I have only had a smattering of beer from Poland over the years and really cannot recall a stand-out, so buyer beware.