The unexpected victory of the Salafists in the Egypt and Tunisia elections has caught many by surprise, not least the Muslim Brotherhood who once thought that they would clean up, but now are faced with the prospect of having to share power with a segment they regarded as marginal. The rise of the Salafists is seen by some as the authentic reaction to the repression of Islamic practice by secular Arab despots. The Salafists regard the first century of Islamic history as the perfected state for humanity,  and now they see themselves as the real inheritors of the voice of the repressed Muslim majority. Their stake has been under-reported because attention has always been directed on the Muslim Brotherhood as the stakeholders of the Islamist vote.

The rise of the Salafists is arguably the most alarming dynamic unleashed by the Egyptian revolution.

But this story has been muffled by an upbeat media narrative that describes the anti-Mubarak movement as dominated by secular youth (in a country of 85 million with median age of 24, the revolution naturally contained many young people). Media coverage was also fixated on the perceived or real dangers contained in the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But as revolutionaries and Mubarak loyalists fought for Tahrir Square, the Salafis maintained an aggressive but low-profile presence at its barricaded entrances.

Part of the bias in coverage has been created by protest organisers. An effort by Sheikh Hassan to enter the square and proclaim his support for the revolution was thwarted by protesters concerned that he would compromise the secular atmosphere they were feeding the western media. That version of the story put the secular users of social networks at the front and centre of coverage.

“I’m not worried so much about the Muslim Brothers as about the Salafis,” said Mohammed ElBaradei, the Nobel peace prize winner and presidential candidate, last month, voicing the fears of secularists. “Some of them, well, there is no common ground with them. They want a completely theocratic state. One of their spokesmen said the other day that democracy is against Islam, and the ultimate authority should be the Quran – as, of course, interpreted by him.”

We miss these signposts of the times at our peril. The 1979 Iranian revolution’s religious roots were largely ignored by the international press, which preferred to interview foreign language-speaking Iranians rather than the less sophisticated crowds supporting Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Similarly, the great popularity of a religious figure such as Sheikh Hassan did not fit the feel-good narrative of Tahrir Square.

The Mubarak regime had suppressed Islamists in many ways, from banning political parties like the Muslim Brotherhood to consistently harassing devout Muslims in Cairo’s streets. But that was not much mentioned. Mr Mubarak was a staunch western ally and so, as with the Shah of Iran, his record of repression was airbrushed.

My right hand is so swollen I can’t close it.

5 or 6 surrounded me, groped and prodded my breasts, grabbed my genital area and I lost count how many hands tried to get into my trousers.

They are dogs and their bosses are dogs. Fuck the Egyptian police.

Yes sexual assault. I’m so used to saying harassment but those fuckings assaulted me.

The past 12 hrs were painful and surreal but I know I got off much much easier than so many other Egyptians.

God knows what wuld’ve happened if I wasn’t dual citizen (tho they brought up detained US students) & that I wrote/appeared various media.

The whole time I was thinking about article I would write; just you fuckers wait.

She asks what would have been her fate if she did not have US citizenship,

‘God knows what wuld’ve happened.’

I think we know the answer to that already. And this:

On the first day, we had multiple gun shot wounds as well as gassings; one young man was dead by the time the hospital gurney came. As far as I know he was killed by multipled wounds from rubber bullets. Another young man had an entry and exit wound from a bullet in his ankle which I don’t think could have been a rubber bullet. The small metal pellets in rubber bullets (or bean bag rounds) don’t tend to lodge in the flesh, but they can do. Sometimes they can be removed with forceps but sometimes the doctors have to cut in to get them out. Most of those cases are taken to hospital.

There have been a few fractures and head wounds. One young woman, who may have had a history of psychiatric illness, who knows, was catatonic when brought in and then came to and screamed and thrashed, smacking her head against a wall so badly she needed several stitches, which was only possible after she’d been given IV sedation.

Many of the staff are traumatised, weeping in corners or losing control and screaming and shouting. A lot of the younger doctors and medical students have had no experience at all to help them cope with what they are facing. We don’t have much of a problem with supplies: stuff runs short but people are donating everywhere. Even if they cannot come to the square they are giving money and aid. We are fed and watered in the mosque; volunteers, sometimes the staff themselves, circulate with snacks and drinks and there is an on-going cleaning and clearing effort.

The mood in the square is dangerous. People are angry in a different way, me included: all that was given and sacrificed, including so many young lives, seems to have been for nothing, and that is just not bearable. I cannot imagine how and where it will end. Yet all over Cairo life continues as if nothing is happening.

While this is a good initiative for the British workforce, let’s hope it doesn’t turn into this:

The new “curry college” initiative is bound to generate hilarity. No scheme which Pickles leads will fail to engender a good deal of good humoured ribaldry, but there is a serious side to these plans.

In addition to the jobs angle, this initiative also has some worthwhile and far reaching motives for the increasing integration. So instead of the New Labour language of “promoting local community cohesion” will be simpler and tighter ideas like “promoting integration” and increasing “tolerance” as the new watchwords.

The draft paper confirms the strategy will be broken down in four separate strands: establishing common ground; increasing social mobility; improving participation and countering intolerance and extremism. Among its proposals are believed to be:

• A new drive against “anti-Muslim hatred” in Britain and a recognition antisemitism is also growing.

• Events to celebrate the Queen’s diamond jubilee and the Olympic Games that bring together different communities.

• An online integration forum, which includes a “barrier-busting site” to emove bureaucratic barriers and encourage different community and faith groups to come together.

• An initiative to establish common ground with Gypsy and Traveller communities.

If Pickles’ Curry Colleges can manage to work these ideas into the community then this an inititative worth getting behind.

i have for some time been aware of the powerful analytical frameworks for bio-psycho-social systems developed by the american psychologist dr clare graves and systematised for practical application by don beck and chris cowan in the excellent book “spiral dynamics” (i’m not affiliated with anyone concerned, incidentally). at the risk of sounding like somewhat of a “fanboy”, as i believe it is called on teh interwebs, i am convinced it constitutes an important piece of intellectual real estate for the understanding of complex socio-political systems, particularly in behavioural terms.

you can read more about the basics of spiral dynamics here and here - and i strongly encourage you to do so, but perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate its unique way of enabling insight into human nature is by a review of the various behaviours that have been exhibited during the riots. in the table below you will see a number of different types of responses and the messages associated with them, which you will have seen reflected by the proponents of these value systems in the various media channels. the vast majority of these types of response can present in either healthy or unhealthy forms – thus “C-P” (“red”) behaviours and messages were used both destructively (wanton destruction) and constructively (arresting looters) – in both cases, the behaviour was the demonstration of dominance and power, with corresponding public messages (a cartmanesque “RESPECT MY AUTHORITAAH!”) sent to the media.

you’ll see that whilst most of the operational trouble has functioned at C-P/red systems level, most of the discussion and analysis has been conducted by politicians and the media at blue (mostly “societal breakdown”, good-and-evil) orange (intellectual, opportunistic and tactical) and green (communitarian, progressive and inclusive) levels – and if the reactions are to be systematic, they will have to be a combination of green, blue and orange solutions appropriate to the situation, just as identifying looters using website photos (orange), communally organised clean-up squads (green) and attempts to strengthen traditional family structures (blue) have already been used. i note that ed miliband (who i usually have little time for) has supposedly come out against knee-jerk reactions and i think he’s correct in this at least; david cameron will not get very far if all his responses are couched in “blue” terms to appeal to the “respect for society must be restored” brigade and executed in “orange” technocratic action plans by community workers who are uncomfortable with anything which doesn’t take account of “green” inclusion. if he is serious about the “big society”, he will need to understand that the big society needs *all* these things, it is not a blue, orange or green concept, just as it needs “red” defences and alternative “purple” clan and kin affiliations than those of gang, patois and skin colour – and that includes the purple affiliations of the non-rioters, too! the “big society” could be second-order policy thinking and leadership, but that needs a shift in both our understanding of the situation and the strategies we use to manage it.

in all these cases i would say: if you want to find a constructive, insightful way of discussing the value systems that led to the events of the last couple of weeks, you would do worse than to look at how spiral dynamics sheds light on the tensions, relationships, structures and messages involved.

all comment and discussion welcome.

He frames his discussion on 4 points:

• Complacency
• Political Correctness
• Political and Economic failure
• Ideology of Resistance

with this in mind, i thought it was worth setting out a few of the principles that i think are fairly basic to pursuing both the more aggressive and the more peace-loving sides without compromising the integrity of either. i believe we can both aspire to a more peaceful future at the same time as defending ourselves against those who threaten our society; i think these might be the things that we hold in common and the things which we believe are not held in common by those we oppose:

1. the belief that muslims have the potential to integrate into british (and other western) society as productively as jews have.
2. the belief that eventually mainstream islam will decisively reject the path of taking practical steps to take over the world and relegate this safely to the realm of the eschatological – at present the islamist movement still actually thinks it can win over this debate.
3. the belief that peaceful coexistence is possible even in the middleeast, given goodwill and a real desire to find a workable solution.
4. the acceptance that, islamism aside, there are a lot of people out there who have an unreasonable prejudice against any and all muslims, not just the fundamentalist sort – and that if we can only get the mainstream communities committed to a pluralistic, polycultural modern world rather than a salafist 7th century cloud-cuckoo-land, a commitment to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with muslims in fighting those islamophobes for their rights to be a part of that future.
5. the acceptance that 1, 3 and 4 also have ethnic dimensions and that we have nothing against arabs, persians, turks, pakistanis, bangladeshis etc qua arabs, persians, turks, pakistanis and bangladeshis etc.

if these can be accepted, without significant reservation, then we can begin to accept and deal with the following challenges that we believe to be real:

• a. that there are some muslims, whether individuals, groups, sects, parties or tendencies, that have the downfall of our society in mind and consequently hold what we consider to be unacceptable points of view – let’s say 13%, for argument’s sake; not even a particularly sizeable minority in relative terms, but in absolute terms, given the number of muslims there actually are, enough to cause problems for both their own communities and wider society.
• b. that some of these groups are busily trying to co-opt and own all the islamic community structures that presently exist, as well as present their narrative as that of “all” muslims.
• c. that these people have, over the years, received large amounts of funding and inspiration (with strings attached) from saudi and other insalubrious middle eastern places, as well as from credulous, starry-eyed orientalists in the guardianista / multiculti camp – without strings attached.
• d. that these people are busily engaged in not only political entryism a la tower hamlets, but in hoodwinking well-meaning liberals into acting as figleaves for their disingenuous political and religious programme and thereby bolstering their own credibility.
• e. that if you take a look into the history of many of these socalled respectable “community leaders”, you don’t have to look very hard before you start finding the bloody trail of the bangladeshi genocide as well as the knuckle-prints of the global islamist movements like the ikhwaan and hizb ut-tahrir, let alone all the dodgy things that get said in arabic, farsi, urdu and so on compared to what gets said in english for the benefit of the western media.

if one can accept all of these things, perhaps dialogue can get beyond the ceremonial and cynical to the meaningful and productive. i myself have to do some serious thinking about where i stand on “platform-sharing” issues in particular. on one hand, i try and follow mandela’s excellent principle of “talking to anyone that will talk to me”, but on the other, my deep distrust of certain people and groups, not to mention 16 years of experience, have led me to conclude that there are some people that it is not worth engaging with, like, say, the al-muhajigoonies of this world, who deserve nothing but merciless lampooning in the most liberal of terms (of late the ahmadis have been added to this list – so i saw with displeasure this morning an advert for them on the side of a bus). similarly, i have to consider the rabin principle – that it is one’s enemies that one makes peace with, not one’s friends and that platforms for dialogue will sooner or later have to address the points that i raise above – but you have to suspend certain questions until trust has been established; you can’t jump straight into a conversation about israel, for instance.

i would be most interested in whether people think i have the basis of the argument down correctly. alternatively, you can all call me an islamophobic racist or something.

For anyone still so possessed by Muzzie-fright as to assert that the Arab uprisings are an Islamist resurgence in disguise (which is to do Ahmadinejad’s propaganda for him in the bargain), listen to what Salman Rushdie says about that. Then take a long hard look in the mirror. The longer the “west” cowers in its delusions and the coziness of neutrality, the longer we put off our moral duty to side with the revolutionaries, and the greater the advantage to the Islamists in their ceaseless efforts to hijack the revolution.

Give your damn heads a shake. Marg Bar Diktator.

“The west talks a great deal about freedom. Here are people trying to get their freedom. They’re not being given it by American tanks. They’re getting it themselves.”

And this is the video of Salman Rushdie he was referring to:

Al-Jazeera reports:

Several hundred people have gathered outside the Libyan embassy in Britain once more to show their support for protesters, Jacqueline Head, Al Jazeera’s online reporter in London reports. However this time a small contigent appearing to represent Hizb ut Tahrir were also rallying, calling for a sharia state to be installed in Libya. The group said they were there to show their support for the Muslims in Libya. Muftah Abdelsamad, a 57-year-old Libyan living in exile in Britain for 35 years, told Al Jazeera:

“We call them the nutters, because that’s what they are. We are Libyans. We are Muslims… but these people don’t want democracy or freedom. What do they want, dictatorship? We always lived together – Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Jews. And we’re all going to live together again.”

Nuff said.

Juan Cole on Ghaddafi’s brutal counter-attack:

The strafing and bombardment in Tripoli of civilian demonstrators by Muammar Qaddafi’s fighter jets on Monday powerfully recalled the tactics of some decades ago of Benito Mussolini, who spoke of imposing a ‘Roman Peace’ on Libya.

In 1930, under Mussolini’s governor of Libya, Rodolfo Graziani, some 80,000 Libyans were removed to concentration camps, where 55% of the inmates perished. In 1933-1940, Italo Balbo championed aerial warfare as the best means to deal with uppity colonial populations. Between 1912 and 1943, half of all Libyans were killed, starved or chased from the country by the Italian colonial regime.

American pundits speak glibly of “Islamofascism,” thus deeply insulting Muslims by tying their religion to a Western political movement. What they do not know is that Libyan Muslims suffered mightily at the hands of the real fascists. The movement of Omar Mukhtar, the school teacher who turned anti-colonialist revolutionary, was repressed by Italian fascism.

The School has had a number of links with Libya in recent years. In view of the highly distressing news from Libya over the weekend of 19-20 February, the School has reconsidered those links as a matter of urgency.

LSE Enterprise has delivered executive education programmes to Libyan officials, principally from the Economic Development Board, and managers. That programme has been completed, and no further courses are in preparation. We have also received scholarship funding in respect of advice given to the Libyan Investment Authority in London. No further receipts are anticipated.

LSE Global Governance – a research centre at the School – accepted, with the approval of the School’s Council, a grant from the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, chaired by Saif-al-Islam, one of Colonel Gaddafi’s sons and an LSE graduate. This note from LSE Global Governance explains how that money has been used to date, on a North African programme of study, principally involving civil society issues. In current difficult circumstances across the region, the School has decided to stop new activities under that programme. The Council of the School will keep the position under review.

The School intends to continue its work on democratisation in North Africa funded from other sources unrelated to the Libyan authorities.

Poor LSE. More than 140 people dead, killed by its benefactor and all it can think about is who the “other sources” are going to.

No mention made of what it intends to do with the money it has already pocketed from Libya. Reflections on a Revolution has a suggestion for the alumni of the School:

As an LSE alumnus, I appeal to all of you to occupy the Old Theater and not to leave until the Center for Global Governance returns the £1.5 million donation it recently received from Saif al-Gaddafi to the Libyan people.

It is utterly unacceptable for an institution like the LSE, which prides itself on a reputation of scholarly independence and integrity, to accept the blood money of a repressive regimelike Gaddafi’s.

As we all know, Saif al-Gaddafi’s money was not obtained through legitimate enterprise but rather through 42 years of shameless exploitation and brutal oppression of the Libyan people.

The Guardian is live-blogging events with their correspondents in each of the three countries.

Also covering the uprisings Issandr Al-Amrani who writes this on The Arabist blog:

My gut feeling is that the most important protests now taking place in North Africa are those in Libya. I say this with no disrespect to those in Algeria, where the regime certainly deserves to be brought down, or my own native Morocco, where the palace and Makhzen need a wake-up call that the status quo (and indeed, the regression of the last few years) is not acceptable.

But Libya shares something important with Egypt and Tunisia: an aging leader (41 years in power) faces a looming succession crisis in which the leading candidates are his own sons. I simply don’t think that’s an acceptable outcome for any republic in the 21st century, and was a key aspect to the revolt against Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and to a lesser extent in Tunisia (with the rumored heir apparent being his nephew). Of course there are also differences: the Libyan regime is much more brutal, more tribalized, more totalitarian than Egypt or Tunisia. The country is split along an east-west axis, with the east kept systematically poorer and discriminated against, along with older historical grievances. That’s why it’s not surprise Benghazi saw the first and biggest protests, particularly since core organizers were relatives of the victims of the Abu Salim prison massacre of 1996.

But then Iran is an Islamic regime which bases its foriegn policy on anti-western doctrine and anti-semitism. These are all factors that the ‘far-left/Islamic-right’ nexus can get behind.

To prove the point: Have you ever heard of a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims to protest the way the Iranian regime imprisons, rapes and kills thousands of working class Muslims  - which was then subsequently defended by the liberal-left on the west’s “misguided” foreign policy? No, it’s very unlikely that you will.

Peter Kohanloo and Sohrab Ahmari have more to say on the foreign policy delusions of the liberal left and the Islamic religious-right:

Or take former Attorney General Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, which released a statement saluting “the heroes of Tahrir Square.” The Center, however, remained curiously silent on the Green Movement, and warned President Obama to “refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of Iran.” Praising the Egyptian protestors seeking a better future is commendable. But did the Iranian heroes and heroines of Azadi Square not also deserve similar expressions of solidarity from American leaders and civil society? Apparently not.

The worst example of such hypocrisy came from the shrill, anti-war group Code Pink. As we speak, the organization is raising funds to provide Egyptian protestors with supplies. If only the Code Pink ladies had been this willing to assist Iranians seeking to have their votes count, as well. Alas, such an “intrusion” in Iranian politics might have disqualified Code Pink leaders from receiving a return invitation to Iran courtesy of the tyrants of Tehran, who had hosted the group’s founders as “citizen diplomats” in late 2008.

What explains the cognitive dissonance among many activists of the left? How can self-proclaimed “progressives” support one set of Muslim reformers, while so coldly abandoning another?

The contradiction is a symptom of a deeper philosophical quagmire born of a sense of guilt felt by some Westerners for past sins, both real and imagined, committed against the non-Western “other.” Western guilt yields a state of perpetual self-loathing, which in turn leads its victims to celebrate any anti-Western cause as morally worthy. Thus, when Egyptians–rightly–rebel against a pro-American autocracy, their cause is automatically perceived as just. However, if Iranians rise up in pursuit of similar goals against a far worse, anti-American and totalitarian regime–one that murders its own citizens in the name of God–Americans are asked to stay silent. After all, they have “oppressed” Iran in the past.

This kind of moral schizophrenia not only betrays classical liberal principles, but also undermines America’s traditional, revolutionary role as a beacon of hope for those striving for freedom. The policy of choosing one country’s dissidents over another’s diminishes America’s status as a trustworthy and dependable friend of Muslim democrats at a time when they need her most.

But as events unfolding in places like Tunisia and Egypt make clear, political change is the Muslim world’s new reality. Iran, too, will once again become the battleground between citizens asserting their fundamental rights and a regime committed to perpetuating its unjust rule. When that day arrives, will the left once again respond with fear and loathing–or truly embrace universal values?

Mubarak Steps Down!

Aljazeera condenses the mixed messages:

Hassam Badrawi, the secretary general of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), told the BBC and Channel 4 News on that he expected Mubarak to hand over his powers to Omar Suleiman, the vice-president.

“I think the right thing to do now is to take the action that would satisfy … protesters,” Badrawi told BBC television in a live interview.

Ahmed Shafiq, the country’s prime minister, also told the BBC that the president may step down on Thursday evening, and that the situation would be “clarified soon”. He told the Reuters news agency, however, that Mubarak remained in control, and that “everything is still in the hands of the president”.

However, Anas el-Fekky, Egypt’s information minister, denied all reports of Mubarak resigning.

“The president is still in power and he is not stepping down,” el-Fekky told Reuters. “The president is not stepping down and everything you heard in the media is a rumour.”

And in Iraq, more of the same

Voting against sharia and slavery

In the near-blanket media coverage of the Egyptian uprising, another compelling story of people power overcoming Islamic totalitarianism is unfolding in North Africa though it scarcely gets a mention and relatively no news coverage whatsoever. But Southern Sudan is now a new nation in its own right after it separated from the Islamist North Sudanese republic via a referendum of secession, in which nearly 99% from the south voted for independence! Here is a report from Morri Francis:

On Monday, I joined hundreds of people packed into the John Garang Memorial Centre, armed with small “South Sudan” flags. A big TV screen connected us to the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission in Khartoum.

Finally – the announcement that all of southern Sudan has been waiting to hear – the results of our vote on our future, whether or not to become a separate nation.

As I heard the news, my mind was ringing with the challenges ahead. Then my phone also started ringing, with friends from around southern Sudan telling me how they were celebrating.

People were happy but calm, as they had already known that the results were a landslide. Some groups went to hotels and bars to party, and danced until morning.

I am proud that we have been able to defy the doubters, with a calm vote – a clear show of everyone’s heartfelt wish for peace.

Unified in our almost 100% vote for separation, among southerners the talk on the street is now a determination to pull together for the development of our new nation.

I hear more than 200,000 southerners have returned from the north, many coming back with the desire to develop our new nation. In Juba, where I live, many are stranded at the Nile River port, still awaiting assistance so they can reach their final destination.

The hopes and expectations of southerners for our new nation are enormous, and there are difficulties ahead. Our jobless youth hope for a new start in life, our parents hope for schools for their children – everyone is dreaming of a better tomorrow.

South Sudan's leader Salva Kiir

Omar al-Bashir, you may be sickened to learn, has been “rewarded” after France and the US agreed to grant him a one year reprieve from facing the ICC on charges of war crimes and genocide. On the day the people of Southern Sudan celebrate their liberty, student protesters in the north are being beaten to death by al-Bashir’s men on the streets of Khartoum.

The halal butcher of Khartoum

Olivia Warham, director of Waging Peace, said: “The final results of southern Sudan’s referendum on secession come as student protesters are beaten and killed on the streets of Khartoum, serving as a reminder that the world cannot see the referendum as a ‘job well done’ and turn away from Sudan.

“The Sudanese youth are demanding the freedoms that their ‘brothers’ in Egypt and Tunisia have claimed, and we should be hearing similar warnings from David Cameron that the Sudanese people too must be allowed to demonstrate without brutality.”

She added: “Only this week the Darfur genocide continues as President al-Bashir’s troops have swept into camps and villages with armoured attacks and aerial bombardment of unarmed civilians. Coming after the height of the world’s attention on the referendum, al-Bashir must face closer scrutiny on Darfur and his continued human rights abuses or more horrors are inevitable.”

A large group of the ones organizing them yesterday were people in galabeyas and long beards shouting “Al Jihad fe Sabeel Allah (Jihad in the name of Allah), you have to continue fighting, we will win this war, if you die here today, you will be a martyr and go straight to heaven, don’t stop, fight, fight, fight”.

NO! This is NOT why we werein the streets on Friday being tear gassed and dodging rubber bullets and it is not why we have been going to Tahrir everyday to be heard. The reason why this revolt went through and became successful was because it was not religiously or politically charged. Don’t let the ones who have been watching this unfold in the shadows ride this wave and hijack what you have been fighting for. I saw on Monday Taalat El Sadat (a dodgy fame hungry politician) ask people in the square to get aggressive. He was met with one loud message by everyone, “Selmeya, Selmeya” (Peaceful, Peaceful) – which is how all of us want it.

This President (who needs to go because enough is enough) has lost all credibility with every single person on this planet. After coming out on Monday night promising swift reform, he sends thugs and under cover cops (I took a pic of one of the IDs, posted on my wall last night) to provoke the ones in Tahrir. For every action, you will always get a reaction ya zift and probably this is what he is looking for – to divide his own people. If you send them to Tahrir, you will get a war (especially since the police have been in hiding since Friday night) however I do NOT want this country to fall in the darkness of the abyss. I am hoping that the Muslim Brotherhood stay out of this although I know that this is impossible at this point.

The above is just to get you guys thinking… and only time can tell us what will really happen. What is happening to my Egypt right now is heartbreaking.

For the time being, only one message is clear…. Mubarak, please leave – how much more blood are you looking for?

"You're not like those other ragheads, Hosni. You're alright!"

Tony Blair, who convinced the world to oust Saddam Hussain, an autocratic dictator of a totalitarian state, said this of Hosni Mubarak, another autocratic dictator of a totalitarian state:

“I’ve worked with him on the Middle East peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians so this is somebody I’m constantly in contact with and working with and on that issue, I have to say, he’s been immensely courageous and a force for good,”

You mean this kind of “immensely courageous force for good“, Tony?

And this is what he had this to say of holding democratic elections in Egypt that could result in the election of the Muslim Brotherhood:

“I don’t think there’s a majority for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. On the other hand, what you’ve got to watch is that they are extremely well-organised and well-funded whereas those people who are out on the street at the moment, many of them will be extremely well-intentioned people but they’re not organised in political parties yet. So one of the issues in the transition is to give time for those political parties to get themselves properly organised,”

This coming from the man who was so keen to bring democracy to Iraq by “regime change”, a pithy euphemism for a disastrous military campaign that has exacerbated problems in the Middle East beyond reckoning. What an utterly shameful, moral relativism from a putative champion of democracy. You’d almost think that he thought Egyptians didn’t deserve a democracy that hadn’t been bombed into them first.

Here is some advice to the Middle East Peace Envoy – how to avoid saying stupid things about the Egyptian uprising. In particular, this one about electing the Muslim Brotherhood:

“If they get Democracy they will elect extremists”. Imagine if the world said that about America. The Tea Party threatens world stability, as did the Bush administration. How would you like if others used that as a threat to support an autocrat who made all opposing parties illegal? In truth, US politics threaten world stability more than Egypt does. Second, the implication is that democracy is not to be trusted in the hands of “certain” nations, people and religions is offensive, racist and ignorant. You do not claim to value human rights, democracy and freedom and then you make exclusions based on race, nationality and religion. Don’t say this shit.

“Nationalism”. I believe the word instantly causes thoughts to materialise in one’s mind – of extremists, such as skinheads, thugs, nazis, people with “dark agendas” and violent or deceiving methods to fulfil said dark agendas. This is not me – but I still consider myself a nationalist. If you’re interested in more detail, I consider myself a “territorial nationalist”. That is to say, I don’t see colour / race and such as important, or a necessity to be “a part of the club”. I personally see it this way: everyone is a part of the club and should pull together and make this club a better place. I think most people are truly nationalists, even though they wouldn’t use that exact word to define themselves: “Hi, I’m ABC, I’m a nationalist.” But the dictionary definition tells us it is a person who loves his or her country, with synonyms such as “good citizen”. I am sure that we would all like to consider ourselves good citizens, people who care for the wellbeing of the nation and our neighbours. Sure! So, when a party brings a slogan to you like: “Putting British people first!” “People like you!” “Bring our troops home!”, they feel like reassuring statements, noble statements. Can they inspire to a degree and draw you in? Well, I thought so. I wanted to see how they were doing this and see these “people like me”. Obviously, there was a multitude of people saying this party was full of bad people, people not at all like me. As I saw myself as a nationalist, I thought they must be wrong and that I would be much, much more satisfied finding out what’s what for myself. This is how I am – always having to see for myself rather than taking someone’s word for it. Just because many people say so, that doesn’t necessarily make it true.

I wouldn’t deny for a moment from the beginning that there were bad apples within the group; you’re always going to get a few, (see if you spot the irony and please place answers on a postcard) and I feel it is unreasonable and lacking in logic to define an entire group by the actions of a small percentage. I spent months before the general elections and a few months after that becoming affiliated and trusted within the “online ranks” of the party. It got to a stage where in a relatively short time I had become respected and given Moderation / Administration authority within the groups. If I’m honest, this fuelled my ego. I started to try and educate and moderate the bad apples and promote the good parts of the party, always, always having to defend its past mistakes and errors. But I began to tire of defending the past, which I wasn’t a part of. Each time, I was assured by all the others that things such as that wouldn’t happen again – we were building a righteous nationalist party the land could be proud of, they just needed to realise we had changed! United, we had the power to change anything!

As time passed – especially after the elections – I saw more of the entrails of the beast; saw what it was and how it worked. The deeper inside, the uglier it got. Many people, making a racist remark here or slandering another who opposed them… I still held onto the idea that ‘Well, perhaps this is still just the bad apples; I need to reach the higher echelons.’ I was frustrated, because when I wasn’t there, keeping everyone in check, people would just come on and instantly start spouting hatred. There was no reason behind many people’s rants; they were blinded. “Nationalism seems to just draw this kind of people”, I thought. I finally got a meet with the area representatives; now I was buzzing, it was all going to be different, more positive, more progress, get to meet leaders – it’s going to be awesome. I had planned out so many ideas and suggestions and wanted to put them forward.

But at the meeting, all the ideas and topics I had to offer were shot down or ignored. They were much more interested in and – dead set focused on – ranting about “those damn blacks” and how “they didn’t belong here” and they were “invading inferior beings”. No matter what topic I tried to raise – always the same. It really came down to a personal hatred of black people. Now it was confirmed to me, finally. I had gone on to meet three influential people within the party, whose jobs and duties it was to encourage and promote to the members… All had blinding grudges and unreasonable hatred of other races; they had no interest in speaking to me about education, economy, health, welfare. So what are they teaching the rest of the group? Not many of those I encountered would second-guess them, or follow up on their statements -  they just wished to get people pissed off, because pissed-off people can be manipulated very easily. I felt sad, because I gave them the opportunity to prove me wrong and they, in my opinion, had sadly not done so.

These people just breed hatred and anger.  Maybe there’s something valid they’re upset about, something that looks like it needs looking into or stopping, but this sort of hate only breeds hate. The way they offer misinformation makes this a vicious cycle. I was asked to represent them, to encourage people my age and younger to join. That I just had to decline; I couldn’t encourage anyone to join a group which is so blinded.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.