The Problem with Revolutions
Article by Charles E.J. Moulton
The happiness for the freedom of the Lybians was a legitimate one, no doubt, but as one fellow journalist put it: it is and was up to the Lybians what they were to do with that freedom. The population cheered, hoping for a change. Muammar al-Gaddafi was dead, shot in the head in his home town in Lybia.
Did things really change? Well, not for the better. Recent history has shown that Lybia has suffered more because of the dictator’s death than was necessary. The situation as it is now borders on the unbearable. The UN and the Middle East Institute are speaking of a financial disaster, a crisis close to the collapse of a state, explosion of widespread criminality and a society on the brink of civil war.
Revolutions do change things, certainly, but not for the better.
This is nothing new, though.
Caesar was stabbed, Louis XVI was beheaded, Nicolae Ceauscu was shot.
Corruption still rules Romania, Lybia has become a haven for criminals and as far as the French Revolution goes, we all know how quickly emperors and kings were back on the throne. Napoleon and the Bourbon heirs saw to that. The royal rulers after the French Revolution were in some ways worse than their predecessors.
One Egyptian man told me he wished the Egyptian revolution never would have taken place. If the dictator still ruled Egypt, his house and car would never have exploded in the attack of a Molotov Cocktail thrown into his apartment by an unknown passing rebel.
Where does one draw the line?
Should we kill a dictator?
If the revolution as such doesn’t help, what is the answer to oppression? The oppressed do retalliate, of course. The oppressors become tyrants, however, as soon as they are in power. Robespierre oppressed his own people just as much as Louis XVI did.
Basically, it is a human flaw. Our aim as humans should be to respect our fellow individuals and, as far as humanly possible, avoid anger. The darker sides of human history can only change over time. When do we start? Now. It starts with you. If every “you” and every “I” tried to work on really respecting and tolerating those who are are different, we would have no war. Of course that is a cliché. The big problem begins what happens to people when they become powerful. Power corrupts people. Power makes people want to change the people they control. They look down on them, they demean them.
“Let them eat cake.”
Marie Antoinette’s comment when she was told that the people had no bread in some ways started the French Revolution.
The misuse of power is as old as time.
We see it in the daily news.
Furthermore, western democracy imposed on an North African state might, on the long term, become a deep problem. Dictatorship was one already, but history showed us that the solution was neither killing the leader nor imposing western politics on a foreign country. What do we do? That is a good question to which we have no viable answer.
Revolutions occur because people want freedom.
It reminds me of one Iraqui boy, whom I asked what he now would do when Saddam Hussein was dead. He answered that he would do what the Americans do: eat Hamburgers and found a boy group.
Is western democracy and an absolutely overproductive market economy really freedom? Is democracy freedom at all? We need our modern society. It does a lot of good. But are we really free? What, after all, is freedom? What are we free to do? Follow the call of commercialism? Enjoy fast food and fast culture, pornography and drugs?
Obviously, it is everyone’s own choice to do what they really want, but I don’t feel we should inflict other states with our way of life just because we think it worked for us. Europe colonized Africa, slicing it up like a cake from Oxford, Paris and Brussels, throwing together rival tribes. The effects of indoctrination became irreversible nightmares.
We are still walking in that minefield.
So, what actually happened after the French revolution? The horrid detriment of the destitute in pre-revolution France led to a situation that excalated to the extreme. For close to five years after 1789, “the reign of terror” executed 20 to 40 thousand people including those that stood at the forefront of the dissidence.
What becomes really terrifying is to see that the state of Paris after the revolution is not unlike the state Lybia is in today. Nothing actually changed. In fact, in some ways there was even more luxury in Paris afterwards than before. There was another group of people dancing and drinking at the parties, but there was still wine, women and song. It was in the end not even about making Paris a better place. The oppressed just wanted to ventilate their anger. The poor were still poor and the Bourbons got back into power soon enough after Napoleon blasted into Europe.
Napoleon Bonaparte rode on the wave of post-revolutionary France. Once he became Premier Consul, he founded the French state police and banned Baronesse de Staël from Paris because she published a Contra-Napoleonic opinion.
Soon after having murdered Louis XVI’s brother and possible Bourbon heir, Napoleon crowned himself emperor. Again, nothing had changed. There was a Bonaparte on the throne and not a Bourbon, that was all.
Many revolutions suffer the same fate. Although Marx’s basic idea of communism carries many benefits, the bitter Russian population tired of the Romanov autocracy received nothing different after the revolution. The contra-marxist idea of the proletary populace having to be led gave the dictatorship the liberty to found the KGB, close in a whole continent from input and forbid the citizens to travel.
Basically, we have a Democles sword in our eager hands. People should not be oppressed. Everyone has the right to be respected. But if the result of the revolution produces something that is just as bad: are all the deceased worth the effort? It is a human fault.
For the followers of people like Anthony Robbins and Dalai Lama, positive thinking moves mountains.
Killing your oppressor is sometimes the only way to get out of a hopeless situation. The Gaddafi Syndrome of the dictator being shot by his people only appears, however, because of misuse of leadership. What we need are leaders that respect the dignity of freedom and the integrity of the citizens.
We have all seen the pictures. Mohammar al-Gadaffi shot in the head by his people in his home town in Lybia and the people subsequently cheering. What I remember most of all, however, is that at the moment of death he was not the international terrorist. He was not the killer or the racist or the bigot, rich, angry politician.
Gaddafi pleaded for his life: “Please don’t shoot!”
At that moment, money and power didn’t matter. He was a little boy hoping to be pardoned. That might be a lesson to us all. Basically, we are all God’s children sometimes walking way off the beaten path.
Responsibility is needed by all, including politicians who know that in the end it might haunt them if they support international terrorism.
Article by Charles E.J. Moulton
The happiness for the freedom of the Lybians was a legitimate one, no doubt, but as one fellow journalist put it: it is and was up to the Lybians what they were to do with that freedom. The population cheered, hoping for a change. Muammar al-Gaddafi was dead, shot in the head in his home town in Lybia.
Did things really change? Well, not for the better. Recent history has shown that Lybia has suffered more because of the dictator’s death than was necessary. The situation as it is now borders on the unbearable. The UN and the Middle East Institute are speaking of a financial disaster, a crisis close to the collapse of a state, explosion of widespread criminality and a society on the brink of civil war.
Revolutions do change things, certainly, but not for the better.
This is nothing new, though.
Caesar was stabbed, Louis XVI was beheaded, Nicolae Ceauscu was shot.
Corruption still rules Romania, Lybia has become a haven for criminals and as far as the French Revolution goes, we all know how quickly emperors and kings were back on the throne. Napoleon and the Bourbon heirs saw to that. The royal rulers after the French Revolution were in some ways worse than their predecessors.
One Egyptian man told me he wished the Egyptian revolution never would have taken place. If the dictator still ruled Egypt, his house and car would never have exploded in the attack of a Molotov Cocktail thrown into his apartment by an unknown passing rebel.
Where does one draw the line?
Should we kill a dictator?
If the revolution as such doesn’t help, what is the answer to oppression? The oppressed do retalliate, of course. The oppressors become tyrants, however, as soon as they are in power. Robespierre oppressed his own people just as much as Louis XVI did.
Basically, it is a human flaw. Our aim as humans should be to respect our fellow individuals and, as far as humanly possible, avoid anger. The darker sides of human history can only change over time. When do we start? Now. It starts with you. If every “you” and every “I” tried to work on really respecting and tolerating those who are are different, we would have no war. Of course that is a cliché. The big problem begins what happens to people when they become powerful. Power corrupts people. Power makes people want to change the people they control. They look down on them, they demean them.
“Let them eat cake.”
Marie Antoinette’s comment when she was told that the people had no bread in some ways started the French Revolution.
The misuse of power is as old as time.
We see it in the daily news.
Furthermore, western democracy imposed on an North African state might, on the long term, become a deep problem. Dictatorship was one already, but history showed us that the solution was neither killing the leader nor imposing western politics on a foreign country. What do we do? That is a good question to which we have no viable answer.
Revolutions occur because people want freedom.
It reminds me of one Iraqui boy, whom I asked what he now would do when Saddam Hussein was dead. He answered that he would do what the Americans do: eat Hamburgers and found a boy group.
Is western democracy and an absolutely overproductive market economy really freedom? Is democracy freedom at all? We need our modern society. It does a lot of good. But are we really free? What, after all, is freedom? What are we free to do? Follow the call of commercialism? Enjoy fast food and fast culture, pornography and drugs?
Obviously, it is everyone’s own choice to do what they really want, but I don’t feel we should inflict other states with our way of life just because we think it worked for us. Europe colonized Africa, slicing it up like a cake from Oxford, Paris and Brussels, throwing together rival tribes. The effects of indoctrination became irreversible nightmares.
We are still walking in that minefield.
So, what actually happened after the French revolution? The horrid detriment of the destitute in pre-revolution France led to a situation that excalated to the extreme. For close to five years after 1789, “the reign of terror” executed 20 to 40 thousand people including those that stood at the forefront of the dissidence.
What becomes really terrifying is to see that the state of Paris after the revolution is not unlike the state Lybia is in today. Nothing actually changed. In fact, in some ways there was even more luxury in Paris afterwards than before. There was another group of people dancing and drinking at the parties, but there was still wine, women and song. It was in the end not even about making Paris a better place. The oppressed just wanted to ventilate their anger. The poor were still poor and the Bourbons got back into power soon enough after Napoleon blasted into Europe.
Napoleon Bonaparte rode on the wave of post-revolutionary France. Once he became Premier Consul, he founded the French state police and banned Baronesse de Staël from Paris because she published a Contra-Napoleonic opinion.
Soon after having murdered Louis XVI’s brother and possible Bourbon heir, Napoleon crowned himself emperor. Again, nothing had changed. There was a Bonaparte on the throne and not a Bourbon, that was all.
Many revolutions suffer the same fate. Although Marx’s basic idea of communism carries many benefits, the bitter Russian population tired of the Romanov autocracy received nothing different after the revolution. The contra-marxist idea of the proletary populace having to be led gave the dictatorship the liberty to found the KGB, close in a whole continent from input and forbid the citizens to travel.
Basically, we have a Democles sword in our eager hands. People should not be oppressed. Everyone has the right to be respected. But if the result of the revolution produces something that is just as bad: are all the deceased worth the effort? It is a human fault.
For the followers of people like Anthony Robbins and Dalai Lama, positive thinking moves mountains.
Killing your oppressor is sometimes the only way to get out of a hopeless situation. The Gaddafi Syndrome of the dictator being shot by his people only appears, however, because of misuse of leadership. What we need are leaders that respect the dignity of freedom and the integrity of the citizens.
We have all seen the pictures. Mohammar al-Gadaffi shot in the head by his people in his home town in Lybia and the people subsequently cheering. What I remember most of all, however, is that at the moment of death he was not the international terrorist. He was not the killer or the racist or the bigot, rich, angry politician.
Gaddafi pleaded for his life: “Please don’t shoot!”
At that moment, money and power didn’t matter. He was a little boy hoping to be pardoned. That might be a lesson to us all. Basically, we are all God’s children sometimes walking way off the beaten path.
Responsibility is needed by all, including politicians who know that in the end it might haunt them if they support international terrorism.