Egyptian Anarchists Seek Self-Governed Society


DennisLeeWilson's picture

From the article:
“However, within the current context, nobody in his right mind can ask for the army to be dissolved,” he noted. The army, like any other national institution, should be under the control of elected civilians and its budget revised by people's representatives to protect national security, he added.

THIS is a big mistake! The army should be DISBANDED and all of the guns distributed to all men and women over 15. If ALL the citizens had guns, like in the USA, there would be NO NEED for an army--or a government police force!. See link below for citizen ownership of guns in the USA and second link below for the DANGER that the standing army presents to ALL Egyptians. BOTH of these issues were major concerns for the Founding Fathers of the USA. There is NO possible way that ANY invading force could conquer a fully armed Egyptian population--and NO possible way for freedom to prevail with a standing army. Egypt's 81 million people is larger than ANY army in the world! All they need is to be armed--as are the American people..

The Right to Bear Arms: Over 10,800,000 Guns Sold in the USA in 2011
American citizens have purchased more than 800 MILLION guns in the last 10 years! (There are only 312 Million American citizens.)

According to Eric Margolis at

Even if parliament achieves [ a new constitution validated by a national referendum ], it will then have to confront Egypt’s 500,000-man military and equally numerous internal security forces. So far, Egypt’s military, which is financed, armed and sustained by Washington, has thrown former dictator Mubarak to the wolves to appease popular anger, but it has barely given an inch on other key issues.

A year after the Tahrir Square revolution, Egypt remains a brutal police state where opponents of the regime and critics disappear, are tortured, and jailed in the thousands. Male and female rape and savage beatings remain standard punishments for protestors and bloggers. The military and security forces still control much of the nation’s high ground, including most of the media, academia, the courts and industry.

Egypt’s US-backed military has been used to ruling Egypt for two generations. The generals own between a third and two thirds of Egypt’s key businesses or real estate and enjoy lavish perks and a cushy lifestyle.

The military’s senior officers have been trained by the US, vetted by CIA, and are joined at the hip to the Pentagon in much the same manner as were Latin America’s generals in the 60’s and 70’s.

Washington gives Egypt’s military $1.3 billion annually, controls its flow of weapons and spare parts, and provides many tens of millions in "black payments" to the military, security forces, and feared intelligence service, the "Mukhabarat."

Accordingly, it’s difficult to see Egypt’s plutocratic military easily giving up all of its political and economic power to a rowdy civilian parliament, particularly when the US, Britain, Saudi Arabia, France, Canada and Israel are all quietly backing the military regime.

DennisLeeWilson's picture

TWICE, I tried to post the above comment to the original article. I wasn't actually denied, merely informed that "Your Comment will be Published Within 24 Hours"

Is there something that I suggested that might be un-publishable in the fact that the military already controls the news?

Samarami's picture

From the article:

    The word ‘anarchy’ in Greek means "no authority." Anarchists’ central belief is that “no man is good enough to be another man’s master,”

Anarchy is defined as having no political authority. The definition does not indicate no parental authority -- or even no community (common law) authority. Read John Hasnass' The Obviousness of Anarchy:

As I see it, when even well-meaning writers (such as Hanan Solayman of the Egypt Daily News may be) becloud correct definitions they change the perception of the reader. Mis-definition is the hallmark of politically correct -- and politically connected -- media, as most of us know.

    Egypt’s anarchists are anticipating a crackdown before the first anniversary of the January 25 uprising. They are perceived as seeking chaos; villains who want to bring down the state, defy authority and spread lawlessness

. (emphasis mine)

It is my observation that true anarchists do not join or support "movements", steer clear of mass "protests", have no reason to wring their hands and lament the tyrannical but predictable evolution of organized states.

There is a distinct need on the part of governmentalists to redefine anarchy. Indifference is the anathema of functionaries of civil government.

The real anarchists are not included in the photo in the article. They are at home, quietly but effectively influencing their families and their neighbors.

Some may even be editing a response to STR. Sam

Samarami's picture

When I attempt to define terms I know little about I'm only engaging in "grouping and tagging". I do some of that, I'm sorry to say. Usually when I've had a bad day or can't convince the world (whatever that is) to think as I believe they should think.

To some, "anarchism" means "No authority. Period." regardless of "arch" content of the word. OK. Have it your way.

To others, libertarians "sift out the authority above them that they rebel and rant....." OK. No problem. Some might even be guilty of that behavior at times.

All I know is this: I'm free. I'm sovereign. I've fielded every argument from every brand of serf and slave in town. And I remain free.

For an old timer, that's money in the bank. (No, I don't mean federal reserve notes.) Sam

DennisLeeWilson's picture

Here is a direct link to a current version of ELIZA. Not as sophisticated as what we have seen here on STR, but the responses are immediate.

Give the link a try. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) field is quite advanced from this early effort.


Samarami's picture


    The in-group at STR is just like a Fundamentalist congregation.

I'm curious. Who would you include as being part of the "in" group at STR? I ask this as one who has spent much of his life feeling like a man on the outside looking in.

Eventually I had to get sober.


Suverans2's picture

G'day Sam,

I know exactly how you feel.

Am I mistaken, or was your simple question, "Who would you include as being part of the "in" group at STR?", not answered?

Suverans2's picture


Notice the inflammatory word, "parrot", in the TROLL's reply.

7. Trolls do not abide by etiquette or the rules of common courtesy.

And, when someone, wearing the masque of TROLL, consistently breaks the basic rules of "etiquette" and "common courtesy" when communicating with me, I eventually tell them to "gfy". But, evidently, lacking the human quality commonly called "empathy", (the ability to understand how someone feels because you can imagine what it is like to be them), they cannot understand why anyone would 'say' that to them.

DennisLeeWilson's picture

Sam, Suverans,

Try out the ELIZA link I provided. ELIZA was programmed 50 years ago. AI has come a long way since then. See the wiki link for details on how far.

The reason you get no real answers is because you are "talking" to an updated version of ELIZA, complete with screen scrapers, extensive data bases and AI "learning" tools. Even so, the methodology is easy to see, especially if you spend some "quality time" at the link, "talking" to ELIZA.

Is Jim Davies around? His IBM background should be able to back me up on this.


Samarami's picture

Dennis, I did the ELIZA skit. Pretty cool for 60's technology.

But I think I had the little gal in the box pissed. Kept turning the questions back at her. She didn't know how to handle old farts like me playing with the program. Reminded me of a few psychiatrists I faced before I finally quit drinking and got off the white man's "paper". Regards, Sam.

Suverans2's picture

Thanks, Dennis. I checked out ELIZA at wiki but I've not yet played around with it like Sam did. (That was then, this is now. I tried it out. Pretty basic, but cool, nonetheless. Thanks.)

So, basically I've kinda been "talking" to myself. I better go check in with the Computer Therapist. lol

Suverans2's picture

One of the technical problems, even with these new upgraded programs, like the one we have here, seems to be that they cannot follow/comprehend/differentiate concepts very well.

For example the one we have here cannot seem to follow/comprehend/differentiate the simple difference between "not being a member" of a gang, and "being free" from attack by the gang. Pretty lame. (Now, it will probably "screen scrape" the word "lame" and lob it back, because, after all, it is an "abuse" program, obviously.)

Anyway, thanks again. It is easier to ignore it, knowing that it is just a poorly written abuse program. (Watch it "screen scrape" the word "abuse", now.)

Samarami's picture

Suverans2, I appreciate the link to "psychopaths", but having just climbed off a truck from a long day's trek I'm going to shelve it for now. I have to stay with light stuff when thinking in terms of the psyche, like this. Or my old friend Wendy. After that I can go a little deeper, such as Thomas Szasz's The Myth of Mental Illness. (Thanks again for the HTML help, Suverans2! Now let's see if they work :-[ ).

As you can see, I tend to eschew the psychiatric hand-wringing for cases like mine. This guy's bottom line seems to go along medical party line thinking: medicate, incarcerate, psychoanalyze (over and over until death do us part).

We're all here 'cause we ain't all there. Right, Injun?

I'm veering away from "ism's" (like "libertarianism"), or "ian's" (like "libertarian"), and ist's (as in "anarchist"), and simply staying with freedom. White Indian has helped me focus on steering clear of ism's and ian's and ist's. They end up representing a target for name calling and grouping and tagging. I don't have time any more for that -- I'm gettin' old, gentlemen!

I'm free. Anybody wants to debate that I can't be a truly free man in an occupied land, be my guest. You're probably saying more about yourself than you are about me when you try to dispute that point anyhow -- you ain't me.

If there're any psychopaths about, just whittle out a few essays or posts here at STR. That'll cure ye.


I think.

Regards, Sam

Suverans2's picture

Hello Sam,

Yeppers, independent thinkers are definitely mentally ill, in fact, that is what I told the psychiatrist, more or less.

Samarami's picture

From "Non-State and State Societies (pdf) linked by Indian:

    Today less than 0.001 per cent of the world's people live outside of the direct control of state societies.

Now I see I'm gonna need to change the bumper snickers on all my bikes (I became car-free a couple years ago). Instead of the: "I AM THE 1%" they will need to read: "I AM THE 0.001%". Doubt if I can ink that in. Will need to have 'em reprinted.


    Q: How many humans in history have felt compelled to go around informing everybody that they're somehow free?

I don't know if you are referring to me, Injun; but if you are, I'm not "compelled to go around informing everybody I'm somehow free".

I might suffer from indwelling compulsion, but I'm not going around anywhere. I'm sitting right here telling you I'm free. Notice I didn't say "somehow free". I said free. There is a distinct difference between being free and being somehow free.

Ask me about that difference some day.