Except for loyalists and government fighters, the people of Libya have "demonstrated," as we like to say. In fact, what they have demonstrated is opposition to a tyrannical leader. The government fell right away in most cities and it has already been replaced in the Eastern region of Libya. That is a pretty dad-burned fast revolution. It took basically no time. Gaddafi has basically no support, does he?
Their grievance is that they are ruled by a tyrant. That's a pretty basic grievance. A tyrant is a tyrant. (Certain details could be supplied as well and supplying such details would entail the explanation that tyrants do not cooperate much; they rule alone, or maybe they have a few partners). The population -- except for the tyrant -- and his army -- is more or less united. This is actually rather amazing and interesting. Or, maybe it has something to do with Libya's tribalism or tribal past.
Ghaddafi, his two sons, and a few partners would appear to this writer to be like a little sicko tyrant family -- with those partners we have mentioned just above. Sicko, sicko, but where is Michael Moore when we need him?
There is so little support for them --- whole cities, and, apparently, the Eastern portion of the country, fell into the hands of other than government forces and rather quick as I said. The fall of these regions occured right after the demonstrations themselves. That's a pretty fast revolution but we really don't want to know about it or the media does not really tell us.
I guess our news media does not have an easy time of it. This lack of information about the real details, or what I call the "why" questions of middle eastern revolutions is my theme today, simply because this is what I am noticing, and I have been thinking (sometimes rather fruitlessly) on Libya a lot. Also because I emailed State (dept.) to intervene, and I am not totally certain that I did the right thing there. What I get ...or think I get ...is that the news media for example MSNBC and CNN, who have the fastest channel to our minds of anyone in the whole world, are not saying anything about the "why" parts --- like "why" they (the Libyans) should have gone and made these decisions to protest, then to back it up with guns. These news media have the responsibility of informing us, or of being the sort of first line of information and of defense in the social system, but it is difficult for the press to agitate of prosteletize. Advocating a particular point of view is not the point here, so they have got to provide something, so it seems to become a sort of entertainment. (They need to fill up the screen 24/7 with a sort of entertainment.) One question is: what do they report on, in that case? Various parts of the freedom battle become the news, the "stories." One example of something they will certainly cover is battles that may occur. This strikes me as if it were a fight in an arena, a Roman one. Or maybe (in a more media-savvy sense) it is a battle between cheesecake and crackers (Test: Which is healthier?).
I can appreciate that it is not the media's job to give us any of these other facts --- although these would be interesting. Some of these "other" facts would be interesting though. I have heard nothing, so apparently I do not get to hear this stuff. Not on the cable news networks --- all I seem to have found time to watch as I'm too busy pontificating on this blog and writing my upcoming economics pamphlet --- although I do not think that I should give in to the desire to say that this is the media's fault.
But --- what kinds of facts would these be if we/I had them? These facts would involve why a whole country except, natch, the army, ha ha ha, is in some kind of uprising or revolt or civil war (none of the terms seem to match --- I recently saw the later being used, probably by the geniuses at the N. Y. T.). This is interesting to me, but apparently not the job of the press? OK; I concede. But, as a result, I do not really understand the nature of a single actual grievance the Egyptians OR the freaking Libyans!!! (Except of course the tyrant thing which I seem to get.)
OK, maybe we should ask ourselves why we are not interested in these things. (I know I'm rambling but the first version of this blogpost sucked/I'm stuck) And to say, with a straight face, that America believes in democracy would imply that these people knowns as "The People" are not hearing about the mid-East from the press at all, but getting these facts, which I really do not think is the case, based on the world that I myself seem to live in. I already conceded that the press has little rather than much to do with democracy. So who has responsibility for democracy? The people, I suppose. But then --- they would get such information.
Our press is self-righteous about some kind of concept involving democracy, or the democratic process --- anyway, there is some concept involving freedom-democracy. Yes, of course; but, why so incapable of articulating? Who is supposed to articulate it? It really says something about us as Americans and the sort of paralysis we are in now.
I want the explanation of what is going on or of just why the Libyans are doing such dangerous things. Revolution is dangerous obviously; why are they are doing what they are doing? No one in the press is discussing it but it isn't their job. Maybe reporting on reasons for revolution, when the revolution is in some other country, is not so easy as I thought at first, before I extensively revised this blogpost. Well, that is how you learn..........
But even if it is not the press's job, I think that part of the problematic here is that they don't know the answers to these questions anyways, because they do not get this revolution stuff, the U. S. being such a damn calm place, except for the motorcycle gangs. If this kind of thing what you want, though Ghaddafi's daughter has offered something. Really. This comes in the way of the New York Times interview a few days back where she said, more or less that "they just like fighting". That itself is a better explanation than we get from our own lords of information. It is something at least.
If you were born and live in the mideast, you do not want to be caught not criticizing the Americans. But shouldn't Americans be able to criticize themselves?
The truth is that there are -- there must be -- interesting facts. But the press does not want to get into this, or they do not, or they do not know how, or they shouldn't anyways, or they do not want to know how. (So many good options here, I didn't want to edit any of them out.)
Anyway, it is all over (not THEIR, but) our head(s). In summary the U. S. press do not want to tell the American people about anything like why the Libyans are fighting or what their problem or their grievances are. I don't know why they do not because I can't figure it out.
Are we basically afraid to know about our own selves, too?
I think we are!
Who were the ruled and rulers of Europe, for example, before capitalism? Well, we have some books about the royal court and such but I don't know anything about regular people persons. What we do not have are books about the ordinary persons, and whether they were free or not. ("Peoples'" histories? They tend to be a little specialized to the Leftie trend.)
We are in the dark about it.
They lived and breathed, I suppose.
But they didn't have Snickers or M&Ms.
The pattern from the old to the new or from the far-away country to ours, seems like, maybe, it's the same old story always. The rulers, and now the press, in our age, who are more or less the same class/kind, do not want or are not capable of informing anyone about the Libyans' actual reasons for revolt. That would mean telling us about what commoners think, and that is verboten, always. They cannot even conceive of such a task. But how hypocritical is that --- to then turn around and call the United States a democracy?
This part of the Libya story is what I am saying one does not receive on the T. V. news as far as I see news being provided to me by my ruling class. Thanks a lot, guys. Our mainstream press is paralyzed: unable to come to a consensus.
What are they, comatose? I do not think there is an excuse. The Press Men would rather not inform themselves or anyone else about it --- the reasons for revolt, opinions amongst the populace, or the true nature of a revolution even should one happen.
What we know as democratic Americans is that a new kind of M&Ms is out; that's not democracy. And, we know the new Snickers commercials, which are on the airwaves (right after the news of the Roman gladiator fight in Libya). And we know that a new flavor of Doritos is there. Yes. We can put our greedy fingers on our "choice." Because "choice" is, after all, our ideology. How narrow can a national ideology be? --- before it goes to sleep? --- and, before we become Libya? And that is, after all, the point and the ultimate reason why all this matters. At that juncture, of course, it is too late. That is why am trying to discuss some of these points in the open --- I hope there is no objection.
The American Revolution and the Libyan revolution are similar, I'll suggest. As I briefly alluded above, everything is much the same with between elites and peoples, the new and old, or the near and the far away. we are not Libya but the U. S. and Libya both have elites. They both have ordinary persons too, and they both struggle towards some kind of democracy or representation for actual persons. In both cases, the population directly revolted, or some of them, and the rest did not oppose it, not strongly enough to matter at any rate. In each case, a war occurs then. This war is to rout the government, the loyalists, the soldiers, the mercenaries, the Indians --- those who were either paid by or still morally/actively support for some accursed reason that rotten old system formerly known as Prince. I don't know which side I should be on as a comedian. I wonder which side did the jesters fight on?
A tyrant is a tyrant; people don't like it. Much literature about these people illustrates the truth that the tyrant often does not understand why people don't like him. ("After all, when I dropped my WMD programs the Americans were quite friendly --- and, I surmise, loyal --- or so they appeared...) I think that what the populations of Syria and Libya want is basically finitude for tyrants, and good for them, right? Cooper Anderson well knows it --- it is a no-brainer.
As said, a tyrant is a tyrant; and persons don't like it. Who likes a tyrant? Nobody. So why is this a big mystery to the U.S. press? That is what I dannot figure out, but at any rate what I see is real popular opinion in support of a new Libyan regime. It is there.
Do you have any interest in democracy at all? Libya has a chance to outdo us and make their revolution, a better one than the American. Are we jealous or something? Right.
They are an isolated country; and they owe us nothing and will do as they please. They even have their own banking system free from Citi-Corp. They could create a new kind of freer system --- maybe one of the freest, most dynamic states in the world, which would be good.
But it is not our job, nor NATO's, to bomb or kill anyone. Our role exists, and it is easy to establish: protect life. It is not our job to create the Libyan's revolution for them.
Our American elite, ossifying in place, can no longer conceive of the need for such a thing as freedom, nor can they express the idea except as some kind of general statement, like a trope, or literary flourish.
They do not feel the need for it, any more than Ghaddafi does. They have their high-falutin' careers. They literally cannot wrap their minds around others' love for freedom -- the Libyans' for example. It is just a cliche' to these newspapermen --- I suppose so.
In all likelihood the nature of the American Revolution was like the Bolshevik revolution, in that it was not a mass movement, which is to say in terms of activism or politics. Nor was it a mass movement later on, after the change of regime, but rather the revolution itself was a movement of intellectuals. The English fell, as we know, and when that happens a tiny elite forms. And it is a new one. A new group of rulers takes over, including (this in the American case) businessmen. We see money coming into play. Popular participation in politics does not look very strong here. Considering, however, that "the People" had no activist or political role, this leaves a question.
My question is this. Why has the idea of "the People", and their freedom, continued to be so important? Because we need our myths? Is that the nature of culture and ideology? But myth, and traditional life, are not the same things. Let's parse the difference here.
It is that actual living life (as opposed to living large) can be contrasted with myth and literature, the later being more like the ideological culture and not the living culture. So you have a living culture, a literature, and an ideology. The former is neither political, nor is it activist. It is just life. Nations are ruled by rulers --- ruling classes. Democracy is a trope, a cliche'. In actual fact, the people do not participate so much. We call ourselves a democracy, but what does that actually prove, if we continue to make no progress at all towards the goal of actualizing that?
Good luck with your new regime, Libyan people.
And: the U. S. should not try to do it for them (nor install our own kind of ruler or our puppet, which one suspects is a possibility, or was, at any rate, done in the past).