The Egypt Mess and Beyond

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You say that the majority should be persuaded to turn against the tiny minority of extremists...

Richard,

This is totally wrong.

I'm not in the crowd control game.

I'll let you rule others. You tell people what to think, if you wish. I refuse to do that. I am no tyrant, nor do I ever want to be one.

My intention is to encourage people to think for themselves. Including Muslims.

Since I believe that most human beings harbor a wish to be good, my intellectual approach for dealing with troubled issues is to encourage people to consider what is good from a different angle than they normally do. (If they get violent, that's another ball game and requires a different approach.)

If there is perceivable evil, I believe most people will reject it once they see it.

That is my point. Not which button to push so they obey me.

The intellectual task--the honest one--is for an intellectual to present it in such a way that the other party can see it if he chooses, or the intellectual can see his own error, Word games don't cut it for that task. For that one you have to use your brain.

I get the feeling that you don't trust people to think for themselves and do the right thing, I believe you want to take their choice from them and guarantee their obedience.

It's a choice, I suppose.

It;s not mine, though.

Michael

[william.scherk]

I do hope you mention some of the things you agree with Beck on, also.

Sure, and I will do that right here. Beck's general point in the following passage agrees with my general take on the lack of fit between US ideals -- which I consider wonderful -- and the concrete policies and procedures of US foreign policy (roughly, crudely, 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend'). I need not repeat the names of many dictatorial regimes already listed.

They hate us because we are hypocrites. They hate us because we told the world, and you and I, we believed it, we believed it, we didn't realize what the Progressives were doing to us. We told the world that we stand for freedom. Truth, justice and the American way, that we stand up for the little guy, we stand up for the oppressed. You and I actually believed that.

Could you point to or quote another actual passage in the first episode where you yourself take issue with or disagree with Beck?

I have been transcribing from the first episode; I will send you that transcription when I finish, so you won't have to type up anything if you found a passage where your observations/opinions/conclusions are in disagreement.

Edited February 2, 2011 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I already know one.

I don't agree that Egypt is the tipping point (the Archduke Ferdinand moment).

That's because I believe the world is underestimating Mubarak and he will surprise people with his tenacity. Nobody stays a bloody dictator for over 30 years without learning something.

I have not read The Coming Insurrection yet, so I cannot make a definite agreement or disagreement on its impact on the events in Islamic countries. I suspect is it less than Beck says (in effect, a likely disagreement), not because the left is not trying to get a foothold there, but because many different interests think they are playing each other when they collaborate.

I would have to listen to the show again for other stuff. But I don't go to Beck for details or answers. I go to him because he knows how to ask a butt-load of relevant questions nobody else in the mainstream asks and points to possible reasons for them. He provides a great starting point for other research on many, many issues that otherwise don't make sense to me.

He's also entertaining.

Michael

EDIT: I received the partial transcript. I found 2 more things I disagree with him on. The first is the opening big picture. I think he is just worrying out loud (sincere worrying, but a little too over the top to fit the complexities of the world).

The second is when he said, "We don't need their oil. We've been buying their oil to redistribute the wealth." While I agree it's true that we don't need their oil, I believe we have been buying oil for a few other less savory reasons:

1. Corruption with big bucks is easier to do outside of USA law,

2. Dirt cheap labor overseas,

3. Taxes (I'm not positive on this one, but I imagine avoiding things like State taxes on manufacture save money),

4. Oil millionaires can prance around pretending to be environmentally conscious since the dirty oil wells are elsewhere, with all the political clout this can generate.

5. The stability a bought dictator provides for things like strikes.

There are probably some more, but that's the gist. I agree that Beck's wealth redistribution idea is among them now since the climate exchange scam was imagined, but not before.

[caroljane]

I should have used a qualification. Something along the lines of the following: Among people who hold strong opinions about Beck, there are basically two poles, with some variations in the middle and some exceptions.

Of course I don't think all people fit into one or the other

Michael, I'm a little confused. Are these two Poles the extremes of the "two categories" (other-controlling and self-controlling tendencies) you mentioned before?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daunce,

Basically, yes.

(Dayaamm! That was too simple. I feel like something's missing. )

Michael

[caroljane]

Daunce,

Basically, yes.

(Dayaamm! That was too simple. I feel like something's missing. )

Michael

No, I'm just sitting here quietly. I don't think I get Beck on my cable so it's a free analysis of a media person who is obviously very influential down there.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daunce,

Don't forget that I am talking about overall primary attitude. Obviously a person has secondary, tertiary, and so on, and this changes with circumstances.

Human beings in general are delightfully mixed up.

In fact, that's why we need morality. To set some standards for ourselves. If we don't, it can become a demolition derby.

Michael

[caroljane]

Daunce,

Don't forget that I am talking about overall primary attitude. Obviously a person has secondary, tertiary, and so on, and this changes with circumstances.

Human beings in general are delightfully mixed up.

In fact, that's why we need morality. To set some standards for ourselves. If we don't, it can become a demolition derby.

Michael

Maybe it's me who's missing something. I just can't see those two qualities as necessary opposites. Dictators can be highly self-disciplined, and lazy self-indulgent slobs on welfare can believe totally in live-and-let-live. Or am I seeing this too simplistically? It seem to me there would be too many exceptions to divide large numbers of people into these categories "as a primary."

[Selene]

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

Sustained gunfire can be heard live right now in Liberation Square

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Maybe it's me who's missing something. I just can't see those two qualities as necessary opposites. Dictators can be highly self-disciplined, and lazy self-indulgent slobs on welfare can believe totally in live-and-let-live. Or am I seeing this too simplistically? It seem to me there would be too many exceptions to divide large numbers of people into these categories "as a primary."

Daunce,

Another component is self-reliance.

A good way to illustrate the concept I was talking about is charity.

Supposing two people want to be charitable to the poor. The person I mean by being interested in controlling himself will go out, find some poor people and give to them freely out of his own pocket. (Or give freely to a charitable organization he chooses.) If he has no money, he will give time or work or whatever.

The person interested in controlling others will claim that he doesn't trust people to do the right thing (what if there are not enough to resolve the problem?), and anyway, it is unfair for some to have so much when others have so little. So he will ally himself with the government and try to get his charity imposed on people. His version of charity is to take something he does not own from some people and give it to others.

To the first, learning to be charitable means learning how to control himself. To the second, learning to be charitable means learning how to control others.

I know words can be interpreted in different manners, but this kind of character issue is the concept I mean. We can find better words for it if you like.

Interestingly, several social studies have shown that people who control themselves in this manner are vastly more charitable with their own money than those seeking to control others. These second tend to be cheapskates when their own pocket is directly involved. I'd have to look them up, but I can find them if you wish. (Or you can Google...)

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

I haven't the foggiest notion where you're coming from there. You've talked of persuading the 93% to reject the 7%. All I've asked is what's your plan for achieving that and you ramble on about crowd control games. If that's what you think I stand for, then you don't understand me. In fact, I know you don't understand me. Anyway, you tell me it's about intellectually pointing across points. Well, that's stating the obvious. What I want to know is what points you are going to put across in order to persuade people?

Richard,

This is totally wrong.

I'm not in the crowd control game.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I haven't the foggiest notion where you're coming from there.

Richard,

You got that right.

All I've asked is what's your plan for achieving that...

I keep saying (I don't know how many times now), but you keep asking as if I haven't.

That's why I conclude you are blind to people thinking for themselves. There's not many other explanations for that many times ignoring it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

deleted by BG

Edited February 3, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Richard Wiig]

I haven't the foggiest notion where you're coming from there.

Richard,

You got that right.

All I've asked is what's your plan for achieving that...

I keep saying (I don't know how many times now), but you keep asking as if I haven't.

That's why I conclude you are blind to people thinking for themselves. There's not many other explanations for that many times ignoring it.

Michael

You may have outlined your plan somewhere, but you haven't directly to me. If I have to trawl to find it, then it's just a case of you being difficult, and I really do not understand why. You've said you'll reason with muslims, that much I have picked up, but I'm looking for your specifics. Do you have any?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Richard,

Look at the other thread. I'm not going to keep repeating this stuff. If you don't get it this time, I will know for certain you don't want to get it.

Here's a link for the reader who is following this thread.

Michael

[anthony]

It's immensely difficult to keep applying one's individualist principles to a group of people who march in lock-step.

My greatest frustration in talking with or befriending Muslims I've met - given that they have been the most reasonable, well-educated, intelligent, and likeable people - has been that they immediately snap into blind collectivism and conformism when it comes to global affairs. Translation: Israel and the US are to blame for everything our fellows have suffered in the past, and are behind some vendetta out to get us.

The hatred I've often witnessed is sobering.

Somehow, this has been so well rationalized, that not one I can remember has challenged this generalized fallacy.

By some mental convolution, they genuinely believe that it is they, not the West, who are under threat.

Given their numbers and influence, this is hard to swallow, but it does give one some doubt. How much are we guilty in our meddlings with the Arab world? (Mea Culpa!) But then again, how much did they bring upon themselves?

Also, many Arabs are glib, rousing, speakers, but you'd make a huge error in paying too much credibility to their rhetoric about what they promise to actually do.

That 93%,(?) who I know without a doubt really just want a peaceful, prosperous, family life, talk fiercely when there's a camera and audience present - but that's where it stops - they're talkers, not doers. Tell one, "here's a rifle (or a bomb), there's the enemy, off you go"... and he'll think you are crazy.

All this bluster may have something to do with dreams of past (and future) military glories; and their visible lack of original thinking may be related to the rigid childhood instruction of dogma by Imams and the Qur'an - I'm not certain.

But it must be asked, why did it take 30 years to revolt against Mubarak? Why now? Is dictatorial authority so well-entrenched in the Egyptian, and the Muslim, mindset, which I believe at least partially true.

After freedom, then what?

Tony

[william.scherk]

I have not read The Coming Insurrection yet, so I cannot make a definite agreement or disagreement on its impact on the events in Islamic countries.

It is a very hard slog (though a short slog at a hundred and some pages, written in French. English translation here).

For those who are unfamiliar with this tract, its on Beck's must-skim list. The New York Times gives a report, from which I excerpt some intriguing details. Beck's treatment below. If this book is a dot, and the Egyptian revolution is a dot, why not draw a firm confident line between the two?

When the French publisher La Fabrique first issued “The Coming Insurrection” in 2007, it received comparatively little attention. But among those who did take notice were the French police, who began monitoring a group of people, mostly graduate students, living in the tiny mountain village of Tarnac in central France.

Last November nine of those men and women, ages 22 to 34, were arrested and accused of “associating with a terrorist enterprise” and disabling power lines that left 40,000 passengers stranded for several hours on high-speed trains. A spokeswoman for the Paris prosecutors’ office said that one of the nine, Julien Coupat, was believed to have written “The Coming Insurrection.” He has denied being the author but told interviewers in France that he admired the book.

The government eventually released the group — who have come to be known as the Tarnac Nine — pending further investigation, with some opponents of the official action accusing the police of carrying out arrests without sufficient evidence.

Meanwhile, the book Mr. Coupat was accused of writing has developed a small but devoted following. Dozens of anonymous translators have posted the text on Web sites. And Semiotext(e), a Los Angeles publisher that specializes in works by French theorists like Jean Baudrillard and Michel Foucault, published an English-language edition of the book at the end of last month with a print run of 3,000.

Hedi El Kholti, an editor at Semiotext(e), said that the book’s winding up as a key part of a controversial case added to the historical value of its message.

“Everyone is dancing around this notion that publishing a book can take you to jail,” he said recently by telephone. “That a book is an element that can involve you in a trial.”

The slender text is part antimaterialist manifesto and part manual for revolution. The writers expound at length on what they see as a diseased and dehumanizing civilization that cannot be reformed but must, they contend, be torn apart and replaced. To that end the authors direct their readers to sabotage authority, form self-sufficient communes and learn how to “support a conspiracy against commodity society.”

Like the authors of “The Coming Insurrection,” most of those observing its publication on Sunday night refused to identify themselves by name.

“The book is important because it speaks to the total bankruptcy of pretty much everything,” one man said after the group left the bookstore. “We’re living in a high-end aesthetic with zero content.”

Edited February 3, 2011 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

I have not read The Coming Insurrection yet, so I cannot make a definite agreement or disagreement on its impact on the events in Islamic countries.

French intellectuals? Chalice tabernac, say no more. Rather than have to read Tropismes again, I will gladly go to the barricades.

"Shoot if you must this old grey head, but spare our country's flag!", she said.

-"Barbara Freitchie"

[caroljane]

Good grief! I am watching the Beck clip. Does he think his audience has never crossed into the US from Canada? Or notice the guns and dogs? These French citizens "sneaked into NY from Canada?" Did they swim?

The book-reading in the starbucks etc reminds me irresistibly of descriptions I have read here of PARC's debut in the bowling alley.

Edited February 3, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Here is a direct quote from the 2009 video you posted of Beck. The "these people" he says at the beginning are the members of The Invisible Committee--the anonymous authors of The Coming Insurrection.

These people know the history of America, and the left knows the history of America, more than most conservatives do.

Thomas Paine was one of those people. He issued a call to arms. I am not doing that. You're an idiot if you start shooting people--all that does is deligetimize the cause. Be like Ghandi. Be like Martin Luther King.

But people on the extreme left are calling people to arms.

I'm not calling for a ban on this book. It's important that you read this book.

Any objections here?

Anyway, this was before all those American history lessons Beck did. And about a year before the Restoring Honor rally.

btw - The tarnic9 people called Beck's video "The best book review yet!" and posted the transcript on their own domain (see here).

Below are a few quotes from the The Coming Insurrection. I got them from Beck's video, but I copy-pasted them from the tarnac9 version just for accuracy

Take up arms. Do everything possible to make their use unnecessary....

There is no such thing as a peaceful insurrection. Weapons are necessary: it's a question of doing everything possible to make using them unnecessary....

It's a question of knowing how to fight, to pick locks, to set broken bones and treat sicknesses; how to build a pirate radio transmitter; how to set up street kitchens; how to aim straight...

Here's a quote from the transcript giving a quote from the synopsis. I checked the text by searching and it is all over Google.

The synopsis of the book describes it as "an eloquent call to arms arising from the recent waves of social contestation in France and Europe... a strategic prescription for an emergent war-machine to spread anarchy and live communism."

Finally, the Wikipedia article for some general information: The Coming Insurrection

From that article:

The Coming Insurrection is a French work (although it has become extremely influential in the North American anarchist scene) that hypothesizes the "imminent collapse of capitalist culture"

. . .

The book is divided into two parts. The first attempts a complete diagnosis of the totality of modern capitalist civilization, moving through what the Invisible Committee identify as the "seven circles" of alienation: "self, social relations, work, the economy, urbanity, the environment, and to close civilization". The latter part of the book begins to offer a prescription for revolutionary struggle based on the formation of communes, or affinity group-style units, in an underground network that will build its forces outside of mainstream politics, and attack in moments of crisis – political, social, environmental – to push towards anti-capitalist revolution. The insurrection envisioned by the Invisible Committee will revolve around "the local appropriation of power by the people, of the physical blocking of the economy and of the annihilation of police forces".

. . .

The book has created major interest in the anarchist movement and in particular the insurrectionary anarchist tendency, as well as among North American radical leftists in general. Bootleg editions of the work have been passed around extensively since before the Semiotext(e) edition.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Richard,

Look at the other thread. I'm not going to keep repeating this stuff. If you don't get it this time, I will know for certain you don't want to get it.

Here's a link for the reader who is following this thread.

Michael

Thankyou for the link.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Beck Responds to 'Conspiracy Theory' Accusations With Three Sentences

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" style="display:block;margin:0" width="320" height="384" data="http://www.kyte.tv/f/"><param'>http://www.kyte.tv/f/"><param name="movie" value="http://www.kyte.tv/f/" /><param name="flashVars" value="p=1011&c=451373&l=221132&s=1171212&tbid=30551" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="never" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object>

On radio Thursday, Glenn Beck responded to those accusing him of wild "conspiracy theories" connecting the extreme left and extreme Islam in the wake of the Egyptian unrest — and he used three simple, succinct sentences to do so.

"I want the left to know, I plant my flag in this soil. If I'm wrong, so be it," he said before laying out his case. "And you can discredit me all you want for the end of time, but I'm telling you I'm not wrong on this one. And there are three points that I want to make sure are very clear."

Sentence one: "Groups from the hardcore socialist left, and extreme Islam will work together because of the common enemy of Israel."

Sentence two: "Groups from the hardcore socialist left and extreme Islam will work together because of the common enemy of capitalism."

Sentence three: "Groups from the hardcore socialist left, and extreme Islam will work together to overturn relative stability, because the in the status quo, they are both ostracized from power and the mainstream in most of the world."

This speaks for itself.

EDIT: This quote from The Blaze is not fully accurate as a transcription. I am sure it has Beck's approval, but I like things tidy. Here is the exact transcription of what Beck said:

So don't talk to me about crazy conspiracy theories.

I want the left to know, I plant my flag in this soil. If I'm wrong, so be it.

So be it that I am wrong.

And you can discredit me all you want for the end of time, but I'm telling you I'm not wrong on this one. And there are three points that I want to make sure are very clear.

This is what I'm telling you. These are the things that I believe.

One: Groups from the hardcore socialist and communist left, and extreme Islam will work together because they are both a common enemy of Israel and the Jew.

Two: Groups from the hardcore socialist and communist left, and extreme Islam will work together because of they are the common enemy of capitalism and the Western way of life.

Three: Groups from the hardcore socialist and communist left, and extreme Islam will work together to overturn relatively stable countries, because in the status quo, they are both ostracized from power and the mainstream in most of the world.

Ya got it?

In the broadcast, he also made a point to say that the world thought he was crazy in 1999 when he was saying that Osama bin Laden was going to become a major headache.

Michael

[william.scherk]

You can't have it both ways. You cannot stand for freedom and prop up murdering torturing bastards. It's a credibility thing--and, more importantly, it's a moral thing.

So, what to do?

What do we say about this, from the Guardian?

The Egyptian regime dug in today, defying international pressure to begin an immediate transfer of power while launching attacks on journalists and human rights observers.

Egypt's vice-president Omar Suleiman offered political concessions, inviting the long-banned Muslim Brotherhood to a dialogue. However, the Islamist movement and other opposition parties have refused to talk until President Hosni Mubarak steps down.

Mubarak told America's ABC News tonight: "I am fed up. After 62 years in public service I have had enough. I want to go." But he added he could not step down immediately for fear that the country would sink into chaos.

He said he had told Barack Obama: "You don't understand the Egyptian culture and what would happen if I step down now."

The government's readiness to negotiate, following Mubarak's own promise not to run for re-election in September, also failed to stem the pressure for faster and more radical change from anti-government protesters on the streets of Egypt's cities and from other world leaders.

Ten people were reported dead and 800 injured yesterday at the focal point of the struggle, Tahrir Square, in Cairo, after the president's supporters mounted attacks on the crowd of protesters.

The army made sporadic attempts to separate the two sides , swivelling the gun turrets of their tanks in an effort to disperse the skirmishing groups and pushing pro-Mubarak groups off a bridge over Tahrir Square, but the troops did not intervene decisively to stop the violence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

There's not much to do. See how it plays out.

You don't ask what safety measures you should do on-site during an explosion. You get out of the way, let it explode and help clean up the mess.

There is one thing that Obama can do, but he won't. He can stop meddling right now. The more he meddles, the worse he makes an already horrible situation.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's Beck's show from today.

This one is very, very heavy. Beck showed some of the connections between the left and Islamists.

He also talked about "Islamic Socialism."

At the very end, he showed Code Pink members spewing out racist crap against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, saying he should be sent back to the fields and/or hung.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LEBaHvJ8Kk?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LEBaHvJ8Kk?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LEBaHvJ8Kk?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Michael