BIBLICAL NINEVEH – THE WORLD CITY

Ancient Nineveh World City It is now 7 months since my last post, February 1st, on the occasion of celebrating the 39th anniversary of being “Born Again,” making me 70 going on 31.

Since a Red Line was drawn in that article, and the Spirit moved me to insert “…to be continued” something I never did with any previous article, I had to pause and wait to see what would develop Spiritually and temporally in this world. In terms of crossing the Red Line, much has happened since February 1st.

On February 21, a new regime took over in the Ukraine, setting Russia and the West on a collision course over Crimea. In my assessment, neither side is backing down, and with more and more economic sanctions being placed on Russia that will have a boomerang effect, what The Kansas City Times published September 13, 1976 is now activated and coming into view, “He wanted to bring to the public’s attention an idea being put out “subtly and deceptively” by the government: That “we have to get prepared for a war with Russia.”

The World War war developing in Syria is expanding into Iraq, the Middle East, and the larger world in General. The Islamic State on the move, is attempting to recreate the original 600 year Ottoman Empire/Caliphate that was centered in Turkey, and ended with WWI.

That would explain why Turkey, being a NATO member, is becoming more Autocratic and supportive of ISIS. I see this as a parallel development with Israel trying to recreate the Israel from king David’s Time so long ago, leading to that Great Day of the Battle of Almighty God, the Christian Bible prophesies will come to this world.

The latest murderous bombardment of the civilian population in the Gaza Ghetto by Israel is also symptomatic of the hatred and violence increasing in this world since February 1st.

This brings me to the latest ‘Sign of the Times’ we live in, and which happened since February 1. Those who keep watch, would find it interesting to note the latest move by the ISIS in Iraq. They just blew up the Islamic Mosque in Nineveh, Iraq, that contained the tomb of Jonah in the whale fame from the Jewish-Christian scriptures, recorded some 2900 years ago.

ISIS threatens Iraq’s ancient past: The lost city of Nineveh

For those who don’t know the story, the ancient Biblical World City of Nineveh was becoming wicked, corrupt and violent. God chose Jonah, and told him to go tell the people of the city if they didn’t change their ways, the city would be destroyed.

Naturally, Jonah didn’t want to do that and tried to get away. This would be the same as God telling anyone today to warn the world, starting with your friends and neighbours, to change or be destroyed. Who wants to be a buzz kill like that?

Jonah tried to escape by taking a cargo ship to another City. A great storm came up, and the sailors, in fear for their lives, tried to lighten the ship by throwing all the valuable cargo overboard.

Jonah escaping by boatThe terrified sailors found Jonah sound asleep in the bowels of the ship and woke him up.

So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon your God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not.

And they said every one to his fellow, Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us. So they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah.

Then they said to him, Tell us, we pray you, for whose cause this evil is upon us; What is your occupation? and where are you coming from? what is your country? and of what people are you?

And he said to them, I am a Hebrew; and I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, which has made the sea and the dry land. Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said to him, Why have you done this? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them.

Then they said to him, What shall we do to you, that the sea may be calm to us? for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous. And he said to them, Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you: for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you. Nevertheless the men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them.

Wherefore they cried unto the LORD, and said, We beseech You, O LORD, we beseech you, let us not perish for this man’s life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for you, O LORD, have done as it pleased you. So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging.

Jonah and the Big FishJonah finally did come to his senses, and returned to Nineveh to do what God commanded. It took 3 days to walk through the City, but just 1 day into it, everyone, from the king on down, resolved to change.

And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God REPENTED OF THE EVIL, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did not do it.

This is such an interesting and hopeful thought! The people were on the path to destruction if they continuedand God was going to bring that evil and wickedness upon the people. But the people stopped doing their wicked and evil things, and God stopped the evil that was in store for the people engaging in that kind of behaviour.

JONAH IN NINEVEH JON 3Jonah was angry. He wanted God to destroy the City, and there are many Jonah type people among us Today.

Personally, I always thought the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale or big fish was an allegory. Spending 3 nights in the belly of a fish symbolized there is no place to hide, to run to, to escape the hand of God as Christ Jesus said 850 years later.

Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from you. But he answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah:

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The Book says 1000 years to God is the same as a Day for a Human, and we have arrived at the 3rd Day

We now see the Sign with this recent event in Nineveh, Iraq In searching Google images for this article, I came across this one. Everyone should understand why it would be more interesting for me than for anyone else.

Jonah_in_the_whale_detail_Verdun_altarThe name of this art is, ‘Jonah in the Whale_Verdun_altar? I was born in Verdun, Quebec, so I have to wonder more!

And the nations were angry, and your wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that you should give reward to your servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear your name, small and great; and should destroy them which destroy the earth

Revelation 11:18

Therefore rejoice, you heavens, and you that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has but a short time.

Revelation 12:12

Everyone can see the Nations are angry, and getting angrier in this material world, but which wrath is which?

God made or man made

Thus says the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that you build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things have my hand made, and those things have been, says the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at my word.

Let ALL those who seek YOU, Rejoice and be Glad in YOU. Let SUCH who LOVE YOUR Salvation say continually, The LORD BE MAGNIFIED!

 

A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND

Forced DemocracyProfessor Richard Falk is an International Law and International Relations Scholar who taught at Prinston University for 40 years. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestinian Rights under Israeli Military Occupation. falk

He has accepted this thankless job reporting in his Professorial style of writing, the facts on on an occupying power breaching International Law governing the rules for military governance of a people that lived on the land before it was captured in war. He is also Jewish, and the Jew Israelis love to hate.

I first learned of him a few years ago reading in the news about the Secretary-General of The United Nations and the US Ambassador to the UN wanting him fired from his voluntary UN position. Without knowing any of the details, my 1st thought was he must be doing something right. gaza_war_crimes_by_latuff21

Upon further investigation I understood why some special Beatitudesinterests would want to silence this gentle, intelligent, lucid, insightful and reasonable Law Professor reporting Israeli violations of International Law without prejudice from the unbiased perspective of a Scholar in International Law.For those having the mind and patience to read, weigh and consider words, and the ideas and visions behind them, I think the Professor is right on in this analysis and presentation of the information in his latest post, and the Signs of the Times. I can only hope my mind will be as lucid, disciplined and organized as his is if I live to be 83 like Professor Richard Falk.

Polarization Doomed Egyptian Democracy

Prefatory Note: I realize that some of the readers of this blog are unhappy with long blogs, and so I offer an apology in advance. My attempt is to deal with a difficult set of issues afflicting the Middle East, especially the seemingly disastrous Egyptian experiment with democracy that has resulted in a bloody coup followed by violent repression of those elected to lead the country in free elections. The essay that follows discusses the degree to which anti-Muslim Brotherhood polarization in Egypt doomed the transition to democracy that was the hope and dream of the January 25th revolutionary moment in Tahrir Square that had sent shock waves of joy around the world!

**************************************************************************

When Polarization Becomes Worse than Authoritarianism Defer Democracy

Doubting  Democracy

Marts 2013 AgileMindsetWe are living at a time when tensions within societies seem far more disruptive and inhumane than the rivalries of sovereign states that have in the past fuelled international wars. More provocatively, we may be living at a historical moment when democracy as the government of choice gives rise to horrifying spectacles of violence and abuse. These difficulties with the practice of democracy are indirectly, and with a heavy dose of irony, legitimizing moderate forms of authoritarian government. After years of assuming that ‘democracy’ was ‘the least bad form of government’ for every national setting, there are ample reasons to raise doubts. I make such an observation with the greatest reluctance.

There is no doubt that authoritarian forms of rule generally constrain the freedom of everyone, and especially the politically inclined. Beyond this, there is a kind of stagnant cultural atmosphere that usually accompanies autocracy, but not always. Consider Elizabethan England, with Shakespeare and his cohort of contemporary literary giants. There have been critical moments of crisis in the past when society’s most respected thinkers blamed democracy for the political failings. In ancient Greece, the cradle of Western democracy, Plato, Aristotle, and Thucydides came to prefer non-democratic forms of government, more fearful of the politics of the mob than that led Athens into imprudent and costly foreign adventures.

Of course, there are times when the established order is fearful of democracy even in countries that pride themselves on their democratic character. Influential voices in the United States were raised during the latter stages of the Vietnam War in opposition to what were perceived by conservatives to be the excesses of democracy. Infamously, Samuel Huntington in an essay published by the influential Trilateral Commission compared the anti-war movement in the United States to the canine disorder known as ‘distemper,’ clearly expressing the view that the people should leave the matter of war and peace in the hands of the government, and not expect to change policy by demonstrating in the streets.

EU-Nobel-PrizeIt was only twenty years ago that the collapse of the Soviet Union was hailed throughout the West as an ideological triumph of liberal democracy over autocratic socialism. Prospects for world peace during this interval inEuropean Peace the 1990s were directly linked to the spread of democracy, while such other reformist projects as the strengthening of the UN or respecting international law were put aside. European and American universities were then much taken with the theory and practice of ‘democratic peace,’ documenting and exploring its central claim that democracies never go to war against one another. If such a thesis is sustained, it has significant policy implications. It would follow, then, that if more and more countries become ‘democratic’ the zone of peaceful international relations becomes enlarged. This encouraging byproduct of democracy for sovereign states was reinforced by the internal experience of the European Union, which while nurturing democracy established a culture of peace in what had for centuries been the world’s worst war zone.

This positive assessment of democratization at the national level is offset by the extent to which Western liberal democracies have recourse to war to promote regime change in illiberal societies. The motivations for such wars is not purely political, but needs to be linked to the imperatives of neoliberal globalization, and to the class interests of the 1%.

democracy_comes_to_youIn the post-9/11 period the Bush presidency embraced ‘democracy promotion’ as a major component of a neoconservative foreign policy for the United States in the Middle East. Skepticism about the nature such an endorsement of democracy was widespread, especially in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Harsh criticism was directed U.S. Government self-appointed role as the agent of democratization in the region, especially considering the unacknowledged motivations: oil, regional hegemony, and Israeli security. By basing democracy promotion on military intervention, as in relation to Iraq, the American approach was completely discredited even without the admitted failure resulting from prolonged occupation of the country. The supposed anti-authoritarian interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya have not implanted a robust democracy in any of these places, but rather corruption, chaos, massive displacement, and persisting violent conflict. Beyond this disillusioning experience, foreign leaders and world public opinion refused to accept Washington’s arrogant claim that it provided the world with the only acceptable political model of legitimate government.

Despite this push-back, there remains an almost universal acceptance of the desirability of some variation democracy as the only desirable form of national governance. Of course, there were profound disagreements when it comes to specific cases. There were some partial exceptions to the embrace of democracy. For instance, there was support in the Middle East for monarchies as sources of stability and unity, but even these monarchs purported to be ‘democratic’ in their sympathies unless directly challenged by their subjects/citizens.  Democracies maintained their positive reputation by protecting citizens from abuse by the state, by empowering the people to confer authority on the national government, generally through periodic elections, and by developing a governing process that was respectful of the rule of law and human rights.

Issues during the last decade in the Middle East have brought these issues to the fore: the Green Revolution against theocratic democracy in Iran, the secular de facto rejection of majoritarian democracy in Turkey, and the various transitional scenarios that have unfolded in the Arab countries, especially Egypt, after the anti-authoritarian uprisings of 2011. The torments of the region, especially connected with the Anglo-French colonialist aftermath of the Ottoman Empire, followed by an American hegemonic regime tempered by the Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union, and aggravated since the middle of the last century by the emergence of Israel, along with the ensuing conflict with the dispossessed Palestinian people, have made the struggle for what might be called ‘good governance’ a losing battle, at least until 2011. Against such a background it was only natural that the democratizing moment labeled ‘the Arab Spring’ generated such excitement throughout the region, and indeed in the world. Two years later, in light of developments in Syria, Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere it is an occasion that calls for sympathetic, yet critical, reflection.

In the last several years, there has emerged in the region the explosive idea that the citizenry enjoys an ultimate right to hold governments accountable, and if even a democratic government misplays its hand too badly, Oil and Democracythen it can be removed from power even without awaiting of elections, and without relying on formal impeachment procedures. What makes this populist veto so controversial in recent experience is its tendency to enter a coalition with the most regressive elements of the governmental bureaucracy, especially the armed forces, police, and intelligence bureaucracies. Such coalitions are on their surface odd, bringing together the spontaneous rising of the often downtrodden multitude with the most coercive and privileged elements of state and private sector power.

The self-legitimizing claim heard in Tahrir Square 2013 was that only a military coup could save the revolution of 2011, but critics would draw a sharp distinction between the earlier populist uprising against a hated dictator and this latter movement orchestrated from above to dislodge from power a democratically elected leadership identified as Islamic, accused of being non-inclusive, and hence illegitimate.

The Arab Upheavals

The great movements of revolt in the Arab world in 2011 were justly celebrated as exhibiting an unexpected surge of brave anti-authoritarian populist politics that achieved relatively bloodless triumphs in Tunisia and Egypt, and shook the foundations of authoritarian rule throughout the region. Democracy seemed to be on the march in a region that had been written off by most Western experts as incapable of any form of governance that was not authoritarian, which was not displeasing to the West so long as oil flowed to the world market, Israel was secure, and radical tendencies kept in check. Arab political culture was interpreted through an Orientalizing lens that affirmed passivity of the citizenry and elite corruption backed up, if necessary, by a militarized state. In the background was the fear that if the people were able to give voice to their preferences, the end result might be the theocratic spread of Iranian style Islamism.

It is a sad commentary on the state of the world that only two years later a gloomy political atmosphere is creating severe doubts about the workability of democracy, and not only in the Arab world, but more widely. What has emerged is the realization that deep cleavages exist in the political culture that give rise to crises of legitimacy and governability that can be managed, if at all, only by the application of repressive force. These conflicts are destroying the prospects of effective and humane government in a series of countries throughout the world.

Military DemocracyThe dramatic and bloody atrocities in Egypt since the military takeover on July 3rd have brought these realities to the forefront of global political consciousness. But Egypt is not alone in experiencing toxic fallout from severe polarization that pits antagonistic religious, ethnic, and political forces against one another in ‘winner take all’ struggles. Daily sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi’ia in Iraq make it evident that after an anguishing decade of occupation the American crusade to liberate the country from dictatorship has failed miserably. Instead of a fledging democracy America has left behind a legacy of chaos, the threat of civil war, and a growing belief that only a return to authoritarianism can bring stability to the country. Turkey, too, is enduring the destabilizing impact of polarization, which has persisted in the face of eleven years of extraordinary AKP success and energetic and extremely capable leadership periodically endorsed by the voting public: strengthening and civilianizing political institutions, weakening the military, improving the economy, and greatly enhancing the regional and international standing of the country. Polarization should not be treated as just a Middle Eastern phenomenon. The United States, too, is increasingly afflicted by a polarizing struggle between its two main political parties that has made democratic government that humanely serves the citizenry and the national public good a thing of the past. Of course, this disturbing de-democratizing trend in America owes much to the monetizing machinations of Wall Street and the spinning of 9/11 as a continuing security challenge that requires the government to view everyone, everywhere, including its own citizens, as potential terrorist suspects.

The nature of polarization is diverse and complex, reflecting context. It can be socially constructed around the split between religion and secularism as in Egypt or Turkey or in relation to divisions internal to a religion as SCAF_to_restore_Mubarak_erain Iraq or as between classes, ethnicities, political parties, geographic regions. In the concreteness of history each case of polarization has its own defining set of circumstances, often highlighting minority fears of discrimination and marginalization, class warfare, ethnic and religious rivalry (e.g. Kurdish self-determination), and conflicting claims about natural resources. Also, as in the Middle East, polarization is not merely the play domestic forces struggling for ascendancy. Polarization is also being manipulated by powerful external political actors, to what precise extent and to what ends is unknowable. It is revealing that in the demonstrations in Cairo during the past month both pro- and anti-Morsi protesters have been chanting anti-American slogans, while the government invites a series of Western dignitaries with the aim of persuading the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood to accept the outcome of the coup.

Egypt and Turkey

The circumstances of polarization in Egypt and Turkey, although vastly different, share the experience of Islamic oriented political forces emerging from the shadow land of society after years of marginalization, and in Egypt’s case brutal suppression. In both countries the armed forces had long played an important role in keeping the state under the rigid control of secular elites that served Western strategic and neoliberal economic interests. Up to now, despite periodic trials and tribulations, Turkey seems to have solved the riddle of modernity much more persuasively than Egypt.

In both countries electoral politics mandated radical power shifts unacceptable to displaced secular elites. Opposition forces in the two countries after enjoying decades of power and influence suddenly saw themselves displaced by democratic means with no credible prospect of regaining political dominance by success in future elections, having ceded power and influence to those who had previously been subjugated and exploited. Those displaced were unwilling to accept their diminished role, including this lowered status in relation to societal forces whose values were scorned as anti-modern and threatening to preferred life styles that were identified with ‘freedom.’ They complained bitterly, organized feverishly, and mobilized energetically to cancel the verdict of the political majority by whatever means possible.

Recourse to extra-democratic means to regain power, wealth, and influence seemed to many in the opposition, although not all, the only viable political option, but it had to be done in such a way that it seemed to be a ‘democratic’ outcry of the citizenry against the state. Of course, the state has its own share of responsibility for the traumas of polarization. The elected leadership often over-reacts, becomes intoxicated with its own majoritarian mandate, acts toward the opposition on the basis of worst case scenarios, adopts paranoid styles of response to legitimate grievances and criticisms, and contributes its part to a downward spiral of distrust and animosity. The media, either to accentuate the drama of conflict or because is itself often aligned with the secular opposition, tends to heighten tensions, creating a fatalist atmosphere of ‘no return’ for which the only possible solution is ‘us’ or ‘them.’ Such a mentality of war is an anathema for genuine democracy in which losers at any given moment still have a large stake in the viability and success of the governing process. When that faith in the justice and legitimacy of the prevailing political system is shattered democracy cannot generate good governance.

The Politics of Polarization

InequalityThe opposition waits for some mistake by the governing leadership to launch its campaign of escalating demands. Polarization intensifies. The opposition is unwilling to treat the verdict of free elections as the final word as to an entitlement to govern. At first, such unwillingness is exhibited by extreme alienation and embittered fears. Later on, as opportunities for obstruction arise, this unwillingness is translated into political action, and if it gathers enough momentum, the desired crises of legitimacy and governability bring the country to the brink of collapse. Much depends on material conditions. If the economy is doing reasonably well, calmer heads usually prevail, which may help explain why the impact of severe polarization has been so much greater in Egypt than Turkey. Morsi has succumbed to the challenge, while Erdogan has survived. Reverse the economic conditions, and the political outcomes would also likely have been reversed, although such a possibility is purely conjectural.

The Egyptian experience also reflects the extraordinary sequence of recent happenings. The Tahrir Square upheavals of January 25th came after 30 years of Mubarak rule. A political vacuum was created by the removal of Mubarak that was quickly filled by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAP), but accompanied by the promise that a transition to democracy was the consensus goal binding all Egyptians, and once reached the generals would retire from the political scene. The popular sentiment then favored an inclusive democracy, which in 2011, was a coded way of saying that the Muslim Brotherhood should henceforth participate in the political process, finally being allowed to compete for a place in the governing process after decades of exclusion. There were from the beginning anxieties about this prospect among many in the anti-Mubarak ranks, and the Brotherhood seemed at first sensitive to secular and Coptic concerns even pledging that it had no intention of competing for the presidency of Egypt. All seemed well and good, with popular expectations wrongly assuming that the next president of Egypt would be a familiar secular figure, almost certainly drawn from the renegade membership of the fuloul, that is, a former beneficiary of the regime who joined the anti-Mubarak forces during the uprising. In the spring of 2011 the expectations were that Amr Moussa (former Secretary General of the Arab League and Mubarak Foreign Minister) would become Egypt’s first democratically elected president and that the Muslim Brotherhood would function as a strong, but minority, force in the Egyptian parliament. As the parliament would draft a new constitution for the country, this was likely to be the first show of strength between the secular and religious poles of Egyptian political opinion.

Several unforeseen developments made this initial set of expectations about Egypt’s political future unrealized. Above all, the Muslim Brotherhood was far more successful in the parliamentary elections than had been 2 secular_day.gifanticipated. These results stoked the fears of the secularists and Copts, especially when account was taken of the previously unappreciated political strength of several Salafi parties that had not previously shown any interest in participating in the government. Religiously oriented political parties won more than 70% of the contested seats, creating control over the constitution-making process. This situation was further stressed when the Brotherhood withdrew its pledge not to seek control of the government by fielding its own candidate for the presidency. This whole transition process after January 2011 was presided over by administrative entities answerable to SCAP. Several popular candidates were disqualified, and a two-stage presidential election was organized in 2012 in which Mohamed Morsi narrowly defeated Ahmed Shafik in the runoff election between the two top candidates in the initial vote. Shafik, an air force commander and the last Mubarak prime minister, epitomizing the persisting influence of the fuloul. In a sense, the electoral choice given to the Egyptian people involved none of the Egyptian revolutionary forces that were most responsible for the overthrow of Mubarak or representing the ideals that seemed to inspire most of those who filled Tahrir Square in the revolutionary days of January 2011.  The Brotherhood supported the anti-Mubarak movement only belatedly when its victory was in sight, and seemed ideologically inclined to doubt the benefits of inclusive democratization, while Shafik, epitomizing the fuloul resurgent remnant of Mubarakism, never supported the upheaval, and did not even pretend to be a democrat, premising his appeal on promises to restore law and order, which would then supposedly allow Egypt to experience a rapid much needed economic recovery.

It was during the single year of Morsi’s presidency that the politics of extreme polarization took center stage. It is widely agreed that Morsi was neither experienced nor adept as a political leader in what was a very challenging situation even if polarization had not been present to aggravate the situation. The Egyptian people anxiously expected the new leadership to restore economic normalcy after the recent period of prolonged disorder and decline. He was a disappointment, even to many of those who had voted for him, in all of these regards. Many Egyptians who said that they had voted for Morsi expressed their disenchantment by alleging the ‘nothing had changed for the better since the Mubarak period,’ and so they joined the opposition.

secular-vs-religious-webIt was also expected that Morsi would immediately signal a strong commitment to social justice and to addressing the plight of Egyptian unemployed youth and subsistence masses, but no such promise was forthcoming. In fairness, it seemed doubtful that anyone could have succeeded in fulfilling the role of president of Egypt in a manner that would have satisfied the majority of Egyptians.  The challenges were too obdurate, the citizenry too impatient, and the old Mubarak bureaucracy remained strategically in place and determined to oppose any change that might enhance the reputation of the Morsi leadership. Mubarak and some close advisors had been eliminated from the government, but the judiciary, the armed forces, and the Ministry of Interior were fuloul activist strongholds. In effect, the old secularized elites were still powerful, unaccountable, and capable of undermining the elected government that officially reflected the political will of the Egyptian majority. Morsi, a candidate with admittedly mediocre credentials, was elected to the presidency by an ominously narrow margin, and to make matters worse he inherited a mission impossible. Yet to unseat him by a coup was to upend Egypt’s fledgling democracy, with currently no hopeful tomorrow in view.

The Authoritarian Temptation

What was surprising, and disturbing, was the degree to which the protest movement so quickly and submissively linked the future of Egypt to the good faith and prudent judgment of the armed forces. All protest forces have received in exchange was the forcible removal of Morsi, the renewal of a suppressive approach to the Brotherhood, and some rather worthless reassurances about the short-term nature of military rule. General Adel-Fattah el-Sisi from the start made it clear that he was in charge, although designating an interim president, Adly Mansour, a Mubarak careerist, who had only days before the coup been made chief judge of the Supreme Constitutional Court by Morsi’s own appointment. Mansour has picked a new prime minister who selected a cabinet, supposedly consisting of technocrats, who will serve until a new government is elected. Already, several members of this civilian gloss on a military takeover of the governing process in Egypt have registered meek complaints about the excessive force being used against pro-Morsi demonstrations, itself a euphemism for crimes against humanity and police atrocities.

Better Mubarakism than Morsiism was the underlying sentiment relied upon to fan the flames of discontent throughout the country, climaxing with the petition campaign organized by Tamarod, a newly formed youth-led Military Democracyopposition, that played a major role in organizing the June 30th demonstrations of millions that were underpinned in the final days by a Sisi ultamatum from the armed forces that led to the detention and arrest of Morsi,. This was followed by the rise to political dominance of a menacing figure, General Adel-Fattah el-Sisi, who has led a military coup that talks of compromise and inclusive democracy while acting to criminalize the Muslim Brotherhood, and its leadership, using an onslaught of violence against those who peacefully refuse to fall into line. This military leadership is already responsible for the deliberate slaughter of Morsi loyalists in coldblooded tactics designed to terrorize the Muslim Brotherhood, and warn the Egyptian people that further opposition will not be tolerated.

I am certainly not suggesting that such a return to authoritarianism in this form is better for Egypt than the democracy established by Morsi, or favored by such secular liberals as Mohamed ElBaradei, who is now serving as Deputy Prime Minister. Unfortunately, this challenge directed at a freely elected democracy by a massive popular mobilization to be effective required an alliance with the coercive elements drawn from the deep state and private sector entrepreneurs. Such a dependency relationship involved a Faustian Bargain, getting rid of the hated Morsi presidency, but doing so with an eyes closed acceptance of state terror: large-scale shooting of unarmed pro-Morsi demonstrators, double standards dramatized by General Sisi’s call to the anti-Morsi forces to give him a populist mandate to crush the Brotherhood by coming into the streets aggressively and massively. Egypt is well along a path that leads to demonic autocratic rule that will likely be needed to keep the Brotherhood from preventing the reestablishment of order. General Sisi’s coup will be written off as a failure if there continues to be substantial street challenges and bloody incidents, which would surely interfere with restoring the kind of economic stability that Egypt desperately needs in coming months if it is to escape the dire destiny of being ‘a failed state.’ The legitimating test for the Sisi coup is ‘order’ not ‘democracy,’ and so the authoritarian ethos prevails, yet if this means a continuing series of atrocities, it will surely lead to yet another crisis of legitimacy for the country that is likely to provoke a further crisis of governability.

Signs and Symptoms Of FascismThe controversial side of my argument is that Egypt currently lacks the political preconditions for the establishment of democracy, and in such circumstances, the premature attempt to democratize the political life of the country leads not only to disappointment, but to political regression. At this stage, Egypt will be fortunate if it can return to the relatively stable authoritarianism of the Mubarak dictatorship. Because of changed expectations, and the unlawful displacement of the Morsi leadership, it has now become respectable for the Tamarod, self-appointed guardians of the Tahrir Square revolution to support the ‘cleansing’ the Muslim Brotherhood. It is sad to take note of these noxious odors of fascism and genocide now contaminating the political atmosphere in Egypt.

The very different experience in Iraq, too, suggests that ill-advised moves to install democracy can unleash polarization in a destructive form. Despite his crimes, polarization had been kept in check during the authoritarian rule of Saddam Hussein, The attempted transition to democracy was deeply compromised by coinciding with the American occupation and proconsular rule. It produced sectarian polarization in such drastic forms that it will likely either lead to a new authoritarianism that is even more oppressive than what Saddam Hussein had imposed or resolved by a civil war in which the victor rules with an iron hand and the loser is relegated to the silent margins of Iraqi political life.

In the post-colonial world it is up to the people of each country to shape their own destiny (realizing the ethos of self-determination), and outsiders should rarely interfere however terrible the civil strife. Hopefully, the Matthew6_33peoples of the Middle East will learn from these polarization experiences to be wary of entrusting the future of their country to the vagaries of majoritarian democracy, but also resistant to moves by politically displaced minorities to plot their return to power by a reliance on anti-democratic tactics, coalitions with the military, and the complicity of the deep state. There is no single template. Turkey, although threatened by polarization, has been able so far to contain its most dire threats to political democracy. Egypt has not been so lucky. For simplistic comparison, Turkey has had the benefits of a largely evolutionary process that allows for a democratic political culture to take hold gradually at societal and governmental levels. Egypt has, in contrast, experienced abrupt changes in a setting of widespread economic distress, and a radical form of polarization that denied all legitimacy to the antagonist, transforming the armed forces from foe to friend of the opposition because it was the enemy of their enemy. If this is the predictable outcome of moves to establish democracy, then authoritarian leadership may not be the worst of all possible worlds in every circumstance. It depends on context. In the Middle East this may require a comparison of the risks of democratization with the costs of authoritarianism, and this may depend on the degree and nature of polarization.

Fascist CapitalismThe presence of the oil reserves in the Gulf, as well as Iran, Iraq, and Libya, along with Israel’s interest in avoiding the emergence of strong unified democratic states in the region makes the Middle East particularly vulnerable to the perils of polarization. In other regions similar structures of antagonism exist, but generally with less disastrous results. The dynamics of economic globalization cannot be divorced from the ways in which nominally independent sovereign states are subjected to the manipulative storms of geopolitics.

END OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY

“Obama’s stealthy signing of a bill over Christmas that allows the Pentagon to indefinitely lock up American citizens accused of “terrorism” without trial has deeply alarmed many Americans. Even George W. Bush didn’t do this.”

Eric Margolis, Foreign Correspondent

ndda-act1

Eric, like the rest of the main stream media, evidently does not think the fact the President of The United States specifically repealed the right to Habeus Corpus on the Eve of the New Year of The Lord 2012 is that important to be concerned about by his casual passing mention of it. Eric, more than most of us, would know what Military regimes with that kind of Legal authority can do to their population.

What is the N.D.A.A.?

The 2012 N.D.A.A. or National Defense Authorization Act, Sections 1021 and 1022, in short: authorizes the indefinite military detention, without charge or trial, of any person, including an American citizen, and applies the “Law of War,” to U.S. soil, making the United States legally a battlefield.

This should be shouted from the rooftops!!!  FOX News, who already sees no good in Obama, curiously, all their talking heads and spin doctors are silent on this serious development under his Watch. They are constantly look for any insignificant reason to criticize Obama and he handed them a whopper of a big reason for legitimate and necessary criticism! This fact by itself should cause people to wonder about Corporate control of the news media.

The Republican Presidential Aspirants remain silent about this attack on Democracy by President Obama as they speak nice sounding generalities the voters accept as substantial statements. Why do they remain silent about this attack on the fundamental bedrock of Democracy? The only reason can be they see this new Law establishing a Military regime under cover of Civilian rule in America as being useful if they take Power. Please! Anyone! Offer an alternative explanation or possibility with a comment.

This legal right and protection from the arbitrary whims of the ruling class in changing economic and political atmospheres has been the cornerstone of Democratic evolution since the Magna Carta of 1215. This is an extremely significant development as it portends to the Future for a global economy on the ropes with austerity and contraction on the way.

All human experience from the Past has established these kinds of economic circumstances move people to demonstrate on the streets. Anyone attempting to organize a peaceful, non violent protest could be “suspected” of being a terrorist or sympathizer and the Military will just come and grab them off the street or out of their home. The leaders of any Occupy Movement would be “suspect. ” The Military does not have to back up their “suspicions” with proof and evidence in a Civilian Court of Law. It would be a bureaucratic decision, not necessarily a Presidential one in the atmospheres of the Day.

Highlighting this contradiction of Democracy in discussions in the Washington Post, CNN and other sites, it appears to be of no concern to the people that Democracy has been repealed in America by the stroke of a pen. The masses are in a very deep sleep as they walk and talk. They have become deaf and dumb like the false gods and idols of gold, silver, brass, wood & iron they serve.

Doing this makes the American cracked Liberty Bell sound even more hallow as war increasingly is the instrument to spread American Democracy in the world to those regimes who don’t provide Democratic rights and protections to their people like the US just repealed.

WARFARE WITHOUT LIMITS: A DARKENING HUMAN HORIZON

PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND

It reminds me of the old story of when the Nazis came and took the Jews away, I paid no mind. I was not a Jew. When the Nazis came and took the gays away, I paid no mind. I was not gay. When the Nazis came and took the political opponents to those actions away, I paid no mind. I was comfortable sitting on the fence.

When the Nazis came for me………………………………………………

This is the President who came to power on the promise of closing Gitmo and this Law he signed into effect increases the logical probability there will be even more Gitmo like secret holding facilities in America few will know about except for the disappeared.

While Obama could have vetoed the Bill which he said he would out of one side of his mouth, information is now public the provision that allows the US Military to detain indefinitely anyone they “suspect” of having any connection with terrorism, is a result of his surrogates urging Congress to include the provision in Law out of the other side of his mouth. This is so extremely dangerous to any notion we have of fundamental Democratic rights and protection of the Law. There will be no civilian Judge to hear the detainee’s cries.

Obama promised not to use the extreme anti-Democratic provision of the Law he signed and now in force. What if the Republican-Christian Right get power to frame Laws and choose which ones to apply to conform America to their Christian vision according the Book and the Law? Inquisition II, anyone?

I wonder if the Harper government, who proclaims it stands on Principle so often, will take a Principled stand against the repeal of Democracy in America or remain silent for “economic benefits” to CanaDa and continues to follow the American lead? Not likely since there is increasing evidence he has no respect for Canadian Democratic traditions in CanaDa now. Only Public Pressure can make him do that if it is undertaken before it is too late.

Canadians should be more sensitive and aware of the  scenarios I see possible in this world with The President preparing the way for Military Police, Military Courts not having to meet any burden of proof or presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and Military Prisons in America.

In our not too distant Past, we saw a similar regime in Quebec with the application of The War Measures Act. People who had absolutely nothing to do with the FLQ were rounded up without justifiable reason or evidence of wrongdoing other than being sympathetic to French Quebec aspirations drowning in a sea of English. Like the Natives in the Residential Schools, they could see forces at work potentially causing them to lose their Native Language.

Long before the Global Occupy Movement, while the English media projected Quebec Nationalism to the rest of the Country in terms of Language only, Quebec saw what English CanaDa couldn’t. The majority of workers in Quebec were French speaking, but the visible minority of the Rich living in the mansions on Mount Royal were English.

We don’t even have to go that far back. Look at the power the Police had at the G20. The Police ultimately were accountable to Civilian Authority. With the legal authority President Obama gave the Military New Year Eve, the Military is accountable only to the Military stationed right on our Border.

The implementation of The War Measures Act happened in our Canadian experience in the recent Past. I can only hope there will be aware and alert Canadians standing on Guard for CanaDa for the near Future.

THE INAUGURATION OF POLICE STATE USA 2012. Obama Signs the “National Defense Authorization Act”

Who cares! I want an iPad to play the latest video game.

Somebody has to do it and seeing not many are, the comment above made in the Website of Eric Margolis, Foreign Correspondent,was sent out to the first last and the last first.

From: Ray Cormier
Sent: January-11-12 1:33:56 PM
To: info@gg.ca; pm@pm.gc.ca
Subject: FW: Can You See?

From: Ray Cormier
To: national@cbc.ca; news@ctv.ca; politics@cbc.ca; power-play@ctv.ca; pov@cbc.ca; connect@cbc.ca; exchange@cbc.ca
Subject: FW: Can You See?
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:31:17 +0000

From: Ray Cormier
To: nycole.turmel@parl.gc.ca; raeb@parl.gc.ca; davies.l@parl.gc.ca; cotler.i@parl.gc.ca; dewar.p@parl.gc.ca; trudeau.j@parl.gc.ca; harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca
Subject: Can You See?
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:45:10 +0000

Honorable Members,

The following comment is posted in the Website of Eric Margolis, Foreign Correspondent.

All of you abdicate your Democratic Responsibilities to the People and The Truth if you remain silent on this extremely significant development.

We should realize the differences between CanaDa, the True North, Strong and Free if we reach for it, and our American neighbors with this new development as the War of 1812 is commemorated.

There are risks to preserving Freedom as you love to remind the people!

Citizen photo – ‘2nd Police Warning for God’s Emissary’ September 10,1977

Chris Hedges and others took the Constitutionality of this provision of the NDAA to a Federal Court and was successful in having this section overturned and declared un-Constitutional.

Chris Hedges Hails “Monumental” Ruling Blocking NDAA Indefinite Detention

The White House won’t give up. They are appealing the Court Injunction that stops the US government, at some level of bureaucratic decision, from determining that an American citizen or any individual deemed “troublesome” anywhere can just just be  grabbed off the street and Renditioned to some Gulag somewhere with no legal rights or recourse to a Lawyer or the 1 phone call whatsoever. They would just disappear and no one would know where they are!

That Lawsuit was stopped in the US Courts, and the most draconian measures in the 2012 NDAA are passed into Law, for when the circumstances of the Times arise. Looking at this World Today, it may be sooner than most People dare think!

Mainline US and Canadian media have abdicated their responsibility to the Public and the Truth by not reporting in depth on what is at stake for our common future. The people will be sprung in a trap unawares.

Years ago, Futuristic movies portrayed the possibilities of governmental Big Brother taking over clandestinely as the people remained asleep unawares to the small steps taken in small bites that will eventually remove any vestiges of Democracy as we have known it, especially the rights and protections limiting the excessive, illegal, UN-Democratic activities of our own governments.

Unfortunately,  euphoria for Chris Hedges didn’t last. The US Supreme Court wouldn’t hear the Case, and a lower Court ruling allowing the Government to keep the anti-Democratic provisions of the 2012 NDAA in effect.

The Importance of Hedges v. Obama

Watching the video below featuring a long serving, ex-member, whistle blower, of The National Security Agency (NSA)

BIG BROTHER IS ALREADY HERE!!!

Sunday, December 21, 2014.

This video of a speech by President Kennedy in 1961 was brought to my attention just this morning, and is more appropriate for our Times than when the President gave it.

Starting by sending a message to President Obama September 10 and a follow-up to President Carter a week later, and to the leading Female Contender to be President in 2020, Senator Elizabeth Warren on September 19.

Good Day Senator Warren,

As you prepare to do battle for the Mid-terms and 2020, I would hope you have the Political Courage to raise the issues brought to the attention of Presidents Carter and Obama in the message below.

Peace

Ray Joseph Cormier,

Ottawa-Hull, CanaDa

———- Original Message ———-
From: ray ray
To: info <info@cartercenter.org>
Date: September 17, 2018 at 10:55 AM
Subject: The Camp David Accord- The Deal of the Century

Dear President Carter,

I was so pleased to hear you on Morning Joe Today. As I live my 75th year, it was an inspiration to me, to hear you speak so coherently on the Subject, and at your advanced age, have the presence of mind to remember the Palestinians in the brief Time the MSM gave you.

I would have liked to know your thoughts on the Trump Peace Plan, cutting off all financial aid to Palestinians, including financial support to the 3 Hospitals in East Jerusalem serving Palestinians? So much for the Trump Administration previously saying a Peace deal cannot be imposed from the outside. That brings Armageddon closer, Revelation 16:13-16 tells us is the Devil’s work, not God’s Will.

I can only hope your reflections, both the good, and mistakes that taught you a lesson, are being filmed for posterity.

In these critical Times, God willing and giving you the strength, I would like to see you having more Public exposure than MSNBC gave you, on what you see unfolding in the US and the World these Days, whether in person, or in many interviews that get air Time.

Peace. God Bless you. Live Long and Prosper!

Ray Joseph Cormier

Ottawa-Hull, CanaDa.

p.s. I sent this message to President Obama last Monday. I hope you can see what I see possible?

President Obama.

As a Canadian, I was very happy when you were elected President. I saw that as a hopeful Sign for America and the World.

You didn’t campaign to inherit the Global Financial Meltdown-Economic Pearl Harbour that happened even before you were elected, in the last months of 8 years of Republicanomics of more to the rich, and fighting Foreign Wars on borrowed money.
The Trump Republican Tax Bill they spin as ‘Reform’ is the continuation of those Bush Policies on steroids.

Watching from CanaDa, the real danger I see, is IF there is another Global Financial Collapse due to more US Economic War on more perceived enemies simultaneously than ever before in US history, complemented by tariffs on more US Allies than ever before, Americans will have to pay for all that.

Removing the few Regulations put in place after the 2008 Global Financial Meltdown-Economic Pearl Harbour to prevent a recurrence, the worst possible aspects I would expect you were briefed on at the Time, increases the likelihood what has already happened, could happen again?

Watching these things, I have to wonder if there is a method to Trump’s madness?

IF there is a sudden, unexpected Global Financial Meltdown-Economic Pearl Harbour like the last one, in the face of the Social Chaos you were warned in 2008 would happen unless you signed onto TARP, it is President Trump who could invoke the use of the worst provisions in the 2012 National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) you signed into Law.

That would make Trump, with 2 years to go, the 1st to use the Legal Authority in that 2012 NDAA to have his Bureaucracy/Military get rid of his ‘opposition’ indefinitely, detaining them in some Gitmo/Gulag, by accusing them of being vaguely associated with terrorism as determined by the Trump bureaucracy, in a Time of Social disorder.
The right to challenge the government’s ‘suspicion’ in a Court of Law is removed.
That’s a very real possibility with Trump’s temperament he has already displayed.

I always admired the High Ideals in your speeches, hoping and praying Americans would take them to heart. But I also saw you didn’t always practice what you preached. On that score, the whole human Race without exception, is guilty.

I appreciated your Grace in dealing with a Congress whose Republican Leaders Declared, even before you were sworn in, their sole goal was to destroy your Presidency, and I saw they did everything within their power to do that.
I hate seeing the Republican hypocrisy/duplicity now that the Pendulum has swung to the other side.

My deepest personal disappointment in you is, as a Constitutional Scholar, you did not VETO the 2012 NDAA even in the face of the overwhelming VETO-proof majorities in both Houses of Congress.
At least, you would have started the Real Debate on American Democracy.
Russians didn’t pass the 2012 NDAA, American Leaders did, long before Trump appeared on the scene.

Now that you have entered the Current Political debate, you can still redeem yourself, admitting you made a mistake signing the 2012 NDAA.

Peace and God Bless you!

Maybe Obama is mulling over the letter? He hasn’t been reported doing anything in Public that I have seen since my message via the embedded email on his Website

https://barackobama.com/contact/

I don’t expect replies. It did take 2 weeks to get this email from The Terminator.

Governor of California. To: ray ray
From: governor@gov.ca.gov
Subject: Re:Governor
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:56:10 -0500

Thank you for taking the time to send me your kind words of support.
Your encouragement gave me a big boost, and it reminds me that we
are moving in the right direction.

I am working hard to improve California’s future and make progress
in a difficult budget year. We’ve tackled politically risky things that
no one wanted to touch in the past, and to me, that’s progress.
We now have the potential to make a positive difference in the lives of
future generations by confronting problems that have been put off for
many years: building up our infrastructure, reforming health care and
education, and finally fixing our broken budget system.

Again, thank you for your kind words of encouragement.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger