The Arab Spring, According to Vox

The title is "Egypt's former dictator has been freed from jail. The 2011 revolution is officially dead".

In the view of the author, this was what happened in Egypt since 2011:

• The people carried out a pro-democracy revolution, resisting the Former Dictator's brutal repression.
• The Former Dictator fell.
• Elections were held.
• The Muslim Brotherhood won.
• All was well.
• The Muslim Brotherhood elected officials were deposed in a militar coup.
• The New Dictator took power.
• Brutal repression resumed.

The article had this to say about the Muslim Brotherhood:

Egypt held its first free elections in 2012. Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, was the victor. But his time in office was short-lived: He was deposed in a military coup in 2013 that brought in Sisi.

And that's it. I found it a bit telegraphic, and decided to take a more detailed look, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Within a short period, serious public opposition developed to President Morsi. In late November 2012 he 'temporarily' granted himself the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts, on the grounds that he needed to "protect" the nation from the Mubarak-era power structure.[94][95] He also put a draft constitution to a referendum that opponents complained was "an Islamist coup".[96] These issues[97]—and concerns over the prosecutions of journalists, the unleashing of pro-Brotherhood gangs on nonviolent demonstrators, the continuation of military trials, new laws that permitted detention without judicial review for up to 30 days,[98] and the seeming impunity given to Islamist radical attacks on Christians and other minorities[99]—brought hundreds of thousands of protesters to the streets starting in November 2012.[100][101]

Before I go on, I'll state clearly that I'm not saying the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. I have no credible evidence to prove or disprove that.

What I'm saying is:

• The Muslim Brotherhood is a religious organization, not a secular organization.
• As such, it's safe to assume it won't establish a secular state.
• Therefore, its commitment is not to democracy.

And if you think you can have a state that is both religious and democratic, just take a look at the Vatican. Or, better yet, consider the consequences of a Christian religious party ruling, say, the US. Consider a Christian president, backed by a Christian religious party (i.e., no separation between state and church), granting himself power to legislate as he sees fit because he needs to "protect" the nation from... whatever.

If we accept that the Arab Spring was a pro-democracy movement, then the "2011 revolution" died when the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections, as far as Egypt is concerned.

Having said that, though... the majority of the Egyptian people voted for the Muslim Brotherhood. That, to me, means that the majority wanted a religious state, and democracy be damned. So, I do agree with the author of the Vox article on this point, that it was wrong for the military to depose the elected government. The majority of Egyptians chose, let them have what they chose.

Other than that, this Vox.com article, as is usual with most media, is terribly biased. Its goal is not so much to inform, but to sell a narrative in line with its agenda and call it an "explainer". Just like, say, Breitbart. It shows a partial view of the whole picture, rushing over any detail that could endanger their "explanation".

I've got no problem with that, actually. I've learned how to think for myself, and how to go looking for information, instead of waiting for it to fall on my lap, dispensed by the Holy Algorithms of Facebook & Friends. However, it's a bit annoying watching progressive media constantly presenting itself as "owners of the truth" and calling everyone else "fake" when, as we can see in this example, they're as biased as everyone else.

Beware of some Identity Politics

No, I'm not going to say much about Dieselbloke's new motto "Lazy Southern Bastards Spend All Their Money on Wine and Women! Didn't Even Save Some For Song!"

Look, cut him some slack. His party, PvdA, no doubt filled with people of the same remarkable political and intelectual level of Dieselbloke, just performed an amazing feat in last week's elections, going from 38 Parliament seats to 9. There's much I could say about Dieselbloke and his pals, but the Dutch already said all there was to say. Another Labour bites the dust. But, hey, Third Way ftw, wouldn't you agree?

Still, I'm sure Schauble will find some way to reward his most faithful attack hound.

Today, let's look at 2 recent Guardian articles:

Identity politics and intolerance a barrier to development, says UN report

‘White working class’: the label that seeks to divide and rule

These articles are from March 21 and 22. It's almost as if there was some sort of agenda behind this. Yes, I know, it's probably the Russians.

Anyway, I'm sure quotes like these are positive, right?

"(...) identity politics (...) are barriers to development"

"(...) has not only exposed deep socioeconomic fractures in British society – it has also invented new ones. Identity politics has taken hold as never before."

OK, not really. You can tell by the amount of "(...)" thingies that this is going to be another ultra-biased non-fake-news take on "identity".

Let's go, then.

"Nationalism and identity politics – of which Brexit is one of the latest examples – are barriers to development among the most marginalised groups in society, according to a UN report"

"The Brexit vote has not only exposed deep socioeconomic fractures in British society – it has also invented new ones. Identity politics has taken hold as never before"

See? That's the way identity politics should go - Brexit - Bad! OscarsSoWhite - Gooood! Identity politics was damn good fine, until them pesky white folks realized they could play that game, too, dang it!

These quotes sum up the gist of each article:

"Overall, the report said, millions of women, indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities continue to be excluded from a quarter-century of impressive global progress on human development"

"After all, it is the white middle class that is in control of the public spending cuts that are disproportionately hitting minority ethnic women, and discriminating against people with African or Muslim names in the job market. Racists and racism exists across society"

Apparently, inequality seems to "disproportionately hit" minorities and women. And while "racism exists across society", don't forget, boys and girls, that only white people can be racist.

There are some... how shall I put it... inconsistencies on each article.

On the first, we learn that "(..) 15 million girls under 18 get married (...) There are 32 countries where women follow different procedures than men to get passports, 18 countries where they have to have their husband’s approval before they get a job". And that "In Bangladesh, maternity leave is six months, whereas there is no maternity leave in the US. And Rwanda, for instance … has the highest number of women parliamentarians, at 65%".

Yes, boys and girls, some things happen in "some countries" and others happen in Bangladesh and Rwanda (for instance).

Oh, and for a few bonus laughs, you get a link to an article that celebrates "ending extreme poverty for a billion people". I'll quote the relevant part: "the world has reduced the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million in 2015". I always say, nothing like earning $1.26 a day to feel the burden of poverty extreme poverty lifting off your shoulders, hey?

And that's pretty much the whole article, just a yuuuuuge dividing line between white men and everyone else. Well, there's obviously some nuance to it all, because "some countries" where women have little or no rights are not ruled by white men, but you get the picture, right?

And that brings us neatly to article #2.

Apparently my ethnicity and London upbringing make me the enemy of the population that matters most right now: the white working class. This accusation was a reminder of how false and divisive these new labels are

Divisive, yes! Absolutely! We don't want divisive... divisive - Bad! Non-divisive... er... Goooood... I guess...

This week saw the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. We’d do well to remember how important language is in sowing seeds of distrust and hate. The "white working class" narrative is leading us down a road of nostalgia for a white Britain. We need to stop it in its tracks

How cute. The "white working class narrative" creates discrimination and division. What we don't get to learn in this insightful article is what does the avalanche of white-male-bashing articles on the Guardian create. Articles with titles such as "Austerity is a feminist issue"; or articles about fad diets that, somehow, manage to mention "white privilege". When I read stuff like that, lemme tell ya, I sure feel the inclusiveness.

When Hillary Clinton was running for president, I saw an infinity of articles peddling the theme "Women Must Vote For HER". Now, with Marine Le Pen, the song has changed, she's a "fake feminist". Ladies, vote for the white male candidate, please.

Violence/harassment against progressive "protected species" is denounced (as it should be). Violence/harassment against Trump supporters is "resistance".

Trump being compared to Hitler, and invoking 1930s Germany to contextualize his policies is fine. Tim Allen saying Hollywood looks like 1930s Germany to a conservative is disgraceful, and even sends the Anne Frank Center into a condemnatory tweet-fest, demanding apologies.

How's that for divisive?

The thing is, I happen to completely agree with the following quote, and I've been repeating over and over and over, until people tell me to shut up:

It’s not hard, then, to see whose agenda dividing the working class is serving – that of unscrupulous bosses, CEOs now earning 386 times the national living wage and the policy-makers who are creating the conditions that allow this to happen.

However, those Guardian articles (and Vox, and NYT, and WaPo, and HuffPo, and etc) are not written by bosses, or CEOs, or policy-makers. Those articles are written by (so-called) progressives, and are right up there at the top of the Breitbart scale, as far as Identity Politics are concerned. In fact, until the recent Far Right surge, no one had been playing the Identity Card as strongly as progressives for the past couple of decades. And when your only argument is Identity, you will always create division.

An additional problem is that, somewhere along the way, progressives have adopted and fully embraced the conservative double-standard playbook, and now use it shamelessly. There's no difference between the double-speak we find on these articles and the conservative BS about ending "taxpayer abuse" by the "welfare Queens", all the while promoting the most baseless corporate welfare. There's no difference between Republicans shutting down Elizabeth Warren and California Democrats shutting down Janet Nguyen; but, you wouldn't know that by reading the progressive media - because they didn't report the latter.

Progressives. Conservatives. Pot. Kettle.

And isn't it ironic...?

This time there's a link, because the ironic effect is something to experience. It's an article on how to keep Mean Ole Prez Duck from stealing your reality.

Mind you, the article is on target, and I believe some of the advice is sound. Fortunately, as luck would have it, I don't have to waste much time going over it all, because the author has conveniently packed all I need in a couple of paragraphs.

“We are living in a time where a lot of people are having a tough time deciding what’s real and feeling like they are being manipulated,” Stern says. “If they know something is true and somebody tells you it’s not true, holding on to your reality is essential. You can’t be gaslighted if you stay inside your own reality and recognize the manipulation when you see it.”
...
With gaslighting, it feels as though the ground is always shifting beneath you. There is no center of gravity. And while we’re being told up is down and black is white, the only way to make sense of it is to remain resolute. Let people have their alternative facts. You’ll stick to reality.

I believe this article is directed at Those-Who-Are-Right (aka, Prez Duck's opposers), to give them the tools to defend from his feverish stream of alternative facts. Yes, I could be wrong; no, this being the Guardian, I suspect I'm not.

However... let's apply this to a different crowd - Prez Duck supporters.

“We are living in a time where a lot of people are having a tough time deciding what’s real and feeling like they are being manipulated,”

From what I've been reading, Trump supporters would feel right at home with this description. They say they're being manipulated by the mainstream - media, celebrities, comedians, etc. So, the Guardian would get got a yuge thumbs-up from the Rednecks for exposing the conspiracy.

“If they know something is true and somebody tells you it’s not true, holding on to your reality is essential. You can’t be gaslighted if you stay inside your own reality and recognize the manipulation when you see it.”

Again, Trump supporters will completely agree with this. If they remain faithful to their view of the world, they can see the mainstream lies for what they are.

Double irony points for failing to recognize that "stay inside your own reality" is definitely not something you want to include on an article about distortion of the truth and objective reality. After all, how do you know your reality hasn't been manipulated, too?

With gaslighting, it feels as though the ground is always shifting beneath you. There is no center of gravity. And while we’re being told up is down and black is white, the only way to make sense of it is to remain resolute. Let people have their alternative facts. You’ll stick to reality.

I believe this final paragraph speaks not only for itself, but also for many other resolute people on the planet, from 9-11 truthers to Daesh militants.

Of course, we get to understand this article much better when we consider the context.

• The Guardian is part of the mainstream media.
• Consequently, the Guardian does not spread fake news/alternative facts.
• Which is equivalent to say that the Guardian always tells the Truth(TM).
• This, in turn, means those who agree with the Guardian are committed to the Truth(TM). No, I won't call them "truthers", don't worry.
• So, the implication in the above linked article is that it is written by someone who holds the Truth(TM) and directed at those who are committed to the Truth(TM).

And here, we get to the usual blind spot for these people: My point of view is superior to yours. My truth is valid, yours is your own reality a bubble of lies. Or, as I was reading the other day on a news site pretty much like the Guardian, it's OK to silence "bigoted speech" and it's wrong to say "all speech deserves protection".

What these people usually forget is that one day the balance of power may shift so far away from them that someone else will be using these same arguments to silence them.

The Nanny

And here we go again...

I've randomly chosen one article about the "racial controversy" that exploded after the "Kids interrupt father live on BBC" video; the articles are all so alike, they're pretty much interchangeable. It's almost as if someone had presented these remarkable authors with a set of bullet points and they had elaborated from there.

Let's go, then...

So, to those who assumed that Kim was the nanny, it’s worth thinking about what kind of woman you might have expected Kelly to be married to.

This was my first assumption as well (a few seconds later, I had another assumption, but we'll deal with that later). When I assumed she was an employee (the word "nanny" didn't really register), I didn't have any thought about who might be his wife, and especially not about what "kind of woman" (what the author actually means is "race of woman") he might be married to (that came by in my later assumption).

Did people assume that the Asian woman in his home was the nanny because she seems to behave in a subservient way?

Actually, I assumed she was the employee because of her over-the-top panic when she entered the room and took the children out.

She seems scared, flustered, her posture is low to the ground and she doesn’t make eye contact or speak.

Scared? Flustered? That woman acted as if she was terrified. The scenario that first played through my mind was something like "Boss tells employee he'll be having a Very Important Video Call(TM) and she'll regret it for the rest of her life if he's interrupted by anything, «especially those pesky children»".

Or is it that she can’t possibly be the heroine because Asian women are routinely depicted as secondary figures in the media, if they are visible at all.

Oh, yes, the first thing that absolutely came to mind when I saw that video was "Hum... I wonder who the hero/heroine is...?"

After I read this remarkable example of white-guilt-inducing BS, I actually considered who could be the hero/heroine here. I'd say it's the children. Why? They are clearly the center of the "plot" (yes, I know, but I'm just going along with the BS).

The article then goes on to present examples of how the media typecasts Asian people (but especially women), presenting them (especially women) as discardable supporting props (did I mention it was especially women?) It gives us such current examples as "Madame Butterfly" (19th century), "Miss Saigon" (1989, based on "Madame Butterfly"), and "You Only Live Twice" (1960s novel/movie). Other examples seem to refer to more current work and may be more relevant, but after reading these, I didn't bother to check out the rest - the onus lies with the author to convince me she's arguing in good faith, and the outdated examples she presented first have failed to convince me.

So, recapping:

My first assumption was that the woman was an employee and that the man was an extremely nasty boss, and not much of a good father. I based that on the apparent terror the woman displayed, and on his distant demeanor through the whole thing, not even acknowledging his children were there.

And my second assumption?

It went along similar lines, but I assumed the woman could be his wife, instead of his employee. Yes, boys and girls, the world can be more than just black and white. Some people can have a "systemic/unconscious racist thought" and then, just within a few seconds, they can have an "inclusive thought". Who could've predicted that, hey?

Why do I say it went along similar lines? It was something like this:

My second assumption was that the woman was the children's mother and that the man was an extremely nasty husband, and not much of a good father. I based that on the apparent terror the woman displayed, and on his distant demeanor through the whole thing, not even acknowledging his children were there.

Ah, but now my second assumption also has a "systemic/unconscious racist" component, namely the submission of the Asian woman to her Master husband. Well, you can't win them all. Although I can point out that while I didn't think about who was the hero/heroine, the White Man surely looked kinda villan-ey to me. That's gotta count for something, right?

Now, for another question - what would I consider "normal" behavior in this situation? Let's have a go at it:

• Man is on video call, live, probably for a large part of the world.
• Children enter.
• Man carries on with his contribution to the news, but may hold his child, put an arm around him/her as he keeps talking.

I believe this would reassure the child everything is fine, and defuse any sort of more disruptive reaction from the children (although, they're children, and delightfully unpredictable). I also believe this would signal the man's confidence that someone (his wife or a nanny) would eventually come and take the children out of the room orderly.

• Wife/nanny comes into the room and takes the children out of the room without looking like she's part of some kind of martial arts horror flick.
• Life can now resume, and the internet can have its sh*tstorm when someone comments "My, how calm and composed that nanny was. This white man must really be an excellent boss! #AsianEmpoweringWhiteMan".

OK, the last point is not what I would consider "normal", just "usual" or "expected".

The author of the Guardian article has a point - there are racial stereotypes. However, there are also other kinds of stereotypes, and the opinion articles from the Guardian, Vox, Slate, Washington Post, or Huffington Post are as much stereotyped as are the opinion articles from Breitbart, Zero Hedge, Red State, or Fox News.

And that, boys and girls, is why 1) we have bubbles; and 2) if you're getting your news exclusively from social media, you don't really have much reason to complain, you've chosen to be bubble-wrapped and misinformed.

In other words - Facebook and Twitter are not the Internet.