Everywhere I went on May 2, 2011 I heard the chants of “USA, USA, USA” by people overcome with emotion about the demise of Osama Bin Laden, as many Americans laughed and joked about how Obama got Osama. This was one of those rare, evanescent, unifying moments in American history where people manage to put their trivialities aside for the good of the country, and it is during moments like this one that you can actually catch a picturesque view of the actual ideology of “One Nation under God” being personified into reality, as the badge of American citizenship seems to shine the brightest, as the number of people who attach themselves to that shine seems to grow the largest. That’s one of the positives about the common enemy role. For reasons unknown to me, it just seems as if it is so much easier to unite as one against the unacceptability of others than it is to unite as one to embrace the acceptability of ourselves, and that is truly unfortunate, no matter how jubilant these American moments can often be.
Now personally, I have no sympathy for Osama Bin Laden, but I do have an ambiguous sympathy for what he will now represent. As joyous as the anti-Bin Laden celebrations were, I couldn’t help but feel somewhat discouraged by it all, because what Bin Laden has taught me is the sickening depths of the bowels of terror, whether it’s international, domestic, or on a personalized level. I always asked myself how a person like Adolf Hitler could be so societally venomous for such vague reasons, but thanks to Osama Bin Laden; I no longer have to ask that question, because the smell of death in that bloody portrait has been seared into my mind forever. My concern is for any ideology that suggests or upholds the blueprints of the genocidal rationing of human life for the sake of pushing a self-serving agenda built only to embellish the unalloyed corruption of megalomania, while being gift-wrapped and packaged as a defense of religious freedoms, and my sympathy is for the numerous, misled canvases that choose to follow it! Consider this; what kind of monster would you have to work to become, where most of the planet sings, dances and cheers for your death? The answer to that question is not one that any of us should ever aspire to know.
This is merely my take on Bin Laden, but there were others—many others and some of these differing opinions on Bin Laden were just as perplexing as the political locations from which they were espoused, and here is where it gets messy. Believe it or not, I spent more time taking on people who claimed to be liberals, not Democrats, but liberals; on the issue of the U.S. led misrepresentations of Bin Laden. I’ve had knock-down, drag-out, political battle royals over this issue, to the point where physical threats were being made and political acquaintances were being lost, and these were not conservatives or Tea Baggers. These were people who considered themselves to be the real left; many of them claiming to be from the Green Party. From claims that I was a terrorist who was responsible for the killing of innocent Muslims around the world based on my support for the Democratic Party, to claims that Bin Laden didn’t even exist, because he was a phony, brainwashing mechanism concocted by the Bush administration to scare people into voting conservatively, to the most polarizing propaganda piece that I’ve encountered regarding Bin Laden, which was the Truther issue, the complexity surrounding the ominous legacy of Bin Laden doesn’t seem any less clouded now that he’s gone, if anything; it just raises more questions in my opinion!
As a liberal, a Democrat, or an Independent, how do you deal with the Truther element, because there are truthers out there, some of them claiming to be liberal, who have exonerated Bin Laden from September 11th all together? Some have even exonerated the entire suggestion of a terrorist existence on any level, and I think this issue will be one of the most lingering problems of the Bin Laden legacy, because it opens the door to selective truth selection, where anyone who is dissatisfied with the results of the truth that they are currently getting can always, and at it anytime, trade that truth in for a more relatable truth that better fits their comfort zones. Sometimes I have to wonder if the Truthers have any idea just how controversial their theories actually are, and there is no middle ground here. You either believe that Osama Bin Laden was and is the face of terror that had a huge hand in the September 11th attacks on the United States, or you believe that the federal government, through the Bush administration, committed political genocide against the American people for political gain, and the clarity to that blurred fog is not nearly as cut-and-dry as you might think it is.
Isn’t it ironic that the truthers, many of them supposedly liberal, are basically echoing the identical sentiment as the Tea Party, which is a huge mistrust of the federal government? They might not agree on the vilification legitimacy of Bin Laden, but they disconcertingly agree on the potential, political cannibalism of the federal government. Nevertheless, this Bin Laden discrepancy is a serious matter, and it is something that will have to be confronted.
In my opinion, Bin Laden was just as bad as or even worse than all of the horrors that have been bestowed upon him, and I’m not just basing all of my assessments on the media. Just ask yourself if you believe that the Osama Bin Laden’s of the world or the Moammar Gadhafi’s of the world would strangle your truth to control your freedom; preserving the status quo of themselves, and I feel like the answer to that question is a resounding yes. If there is one thing we should have all learned from the uprisings in the Middle-East, it’s the chilling reality that if people like Osama Bin Laden would kill their countrymen for the lure of corrupt and absolute power; what do you think they would do to you, to me, to us? The United States might not be a foreign policy saint, but I would still take America over Bin Laden any day, and this is where I deliver my non-truther stance, by calling Bin Laden what he truly is, which is what I called him in my book—an infidel impersonating a Muslim. Like Hosni Mubarak, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar al-Assad, Ahmadinejad, Slobodan Milošević, and many other crackdown oppressors; Bin Laden didn’t live and die for Islam. Bin Laden lived and died for Bin Laden!
So, I’ll side with President Obama on this one on a job well-done. I would also like to acknowledge President Clinton’s efforts and President Bush’s efforts, especially Bush, because he had to make the call on whether or not to face-off against terrorism in Afghanistan, and this why I never criticized the Bush administration for going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and when I say Afghanistan, I mean Afghanistan, not Iraq! If you’re happy to sit around cheer over the death of Bin Laden, then you also have to be well-rounded enough to understand the total operation that delivered it. So I’ll try to make this point as clearly as I can make it. If President Bush, or any other sitting U.S. President, had the credible intelligence that could place the organizational fingerprints of Bin Laden on the September 11th attacks, then it is the undisputable responsibility of that president to act accordingly, and direct the proper resources towards the apprehension of Bin Laden; leaving the possibility of total war as a valid option. If you are either unwilling or unable to make this type of call, then the presidency is obviously not for you. Ask yourself this question. If President Bush did not respond to the September 11th attacks through the Afghanistan initiative, would he have been re-elected, or would he have even won the Republican nomination in 2004–probably not? The American people demanded action, and Bush really didn’t have much of a choice. He had to do something.
What President Obama oversaw was a textbook maneuver that would make West Point proud, as he has slyly taken away the good, old, reliable, “Democrats are weak on terror” card, and I hope the Democrats are taking notes. So, goodbye Osama Bin Laden, and I hope all 40 of your virgins have eternal gonorrhea!
Bryian K. Revoner
Author of the book The Fear of Being Challenged: I Am Democratically Independent; I Am the Realacrat
Related posts:
If you liked this article, share it:
Author: Bryian Revoner
Welcome to the ideology of the Realacrats, where the anticipation of the future defeats the reminiscence of the past, where the dreams of one can change the lives of all, where understanding is a gift that can only be understood when it is applied, where we realistically search for what we will realistically find, and where the narrative you write will be penned in the ink of your own individuality. We will not ask that you believe in God, but we will ask that you believe in yourself, because many of the treasures we seek lie hidden in plain sight, but blinded eyes led by filtered ears will prevent many from finding them. Realacrats will ensure that it does not prevent all, for the fear of being challenged will not go unchallenged by what will come to be known as the Realacrat ideology! I am Independently Democratic, and I am Democratically Independent. I am the Realacrat, and this is the Realacratic mission statement!
~The Fear of Being Challenged
This is the website, www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore, where The Fear of Being Challenged is on sale now as an E-book for $9.99, and I implore everyone who is interested to go the E-book route, because the actual book is much higher in price. All you have to do is go to that website and enter the title or my name in the iUniverse search engine, and you will be able to see or buy the book. Again, I suggest the E-book.
The Fear of Being Challenged, Democratically Independent; I Am the Realacrat! That is the title of the book in my profile picture. The actual book is not yet completed, but the E-Book is available through iUniverse, just in case there is anyone out there who wants to know about this. As many of you know, I wrote a few articles and essays on Facebook. I was splitting time between writing my articles, and writing my book. Sometimes I would work on both projects simultaneously. I was forced to do all of this independently, because none of the publishers liked what I had to offer. Many of them said that I was too radical, too controversial, too naïve, too hopeful, too political, not political enough, too liberal, not liberal enough, too conservative, not conservative enough, too pro-Black, not pro-Black enough, too anti-White, too welcoming to Whites, too inclusive, not inclusive enough, to pro-Democratic, not Democratic enough, too anti-Republican, not critical enough of Republicans, too partisan, not partisan enough, too ideologically simplistic, too ideologically complex, too rudimentary in sentence structure and thought progression, and too multidimensional in sentence structure and thought progression.
So if I had to summarize the entire body of work; based on all of these different elements of assessment, I’d theorize that the prodigious sentiment connecting them all would have to be the intrinsic polarization of the differentiations of a highly-induced opinionatedness that cannot be collectively avoided by the reader, which means that in all likelihood; this venture will not be a boring one under any stretch of the imagination! I can’t sit here and convince you that I am able to solve all of the world’s problems within the confines of this book, but I will attempt to convince you that the cognitive absorption of this material will stir the emotional stew that boils within you. I’ll admit that this is not a "Kum Ba Yah" moment, and I’ll admit that this is not a Bryian R., feel-good, fan club convention either. I didn’t write it to keep you as a friend, and I didn’t write it transform you into an enemy, but I did write it to inspire you to think about your dreams and to coax you into re-evaluating your fears of being challenged, because no matter how much of a bad ass we all would like to be; everyone has feared the challenged on some level!
Outside of the Facebook world, I was continuously confronted with this mass confusion regarding the ideology of my subject matter, from the numerous publishers that I submitted it to, to the many editors who stated how they just didn’t like the way that I write or the way that I idealize. I had publishers and editors who loved me and published many of my articles, but I also had the same number of publishers and editors who despised me and eventually overrode other publishers and editors and even yanked many of my already published articles.
For example, I was writing for this organization as an Op-Ed, and I had a couple of articles published through that organization. After about the third article, one of the higher ranking editors sends me an email explaining why he yanked my articles. He said to me: “I’ve got news for you buddy! Just because you’ve been given the nod of approval by our editing staff, it does not mean that you’ve been given the nod of approval by me! They accepted your material, but I am now rejecting it, and I have the power to overrule the entire editing staff. So your little run here is done! I suggest that you create a diary for the kind of work that you do, because it’s too personal! No one cares about your personal ideologies, your personal views, or your personal experiences. You simply are not that important to anyone outside of yourself.”
And for the record, the subject matter that was in question was entitled “Conversation with a Tea Bagger,” which was published on Facebook and is in The Fear of Being Challenged. Ironically, there were other book publishers, who eventually turned me down about the Fear of Being Challenged, who voiced similar complaints about what I do in a writing capacity. Like many of my Op-Ed critiques, book publishers that I attempted to woo were also highly-uncomfortable about what they referred to as my ‘over-the-top, narcissism’ of my own self-worth. One of the publishers said to me: “Who in the hell are you to be espousing such rhetoric? Who do you think you are? You’re not Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. You not Obama! Your rhetoric speaks as if it’s coming from somebody who’s significantly boisterous, but the lack of recognition surrounding your bland name speaks to the exact opposite! You have achieved nothing that would afford you the luxury of trying to conjure up such leadership qualities, and you certainly have no legitimate reasons to believe that you deserve any form of an audience. You’re, sir, are a nobody! You’re not Malcolm X, and you’re no Dr. King. Those guys were famous. You are not. You think you have an ideology, but trust me, my friend, when I say this to you. You will never end up sitting on Oprah’s couch with these unrealistic, yet honorable, ideas you’ve concocted. It’s obvious that you’ve put a lot of thought into this project, but surely you weren’t gullible enough to actually believe that you could be heard,” and then they laughed at me, and hung up on me.
This is precisely why I sub-titled this book “Democratically Independent; I Am the Realacrat,” because in my view; the power of realism allows anyone to be a Democratically Independent Realacrat; meaning, the realities of our existences affords all of us the right to engage the freedoms of our democracy through the paths that we choose and the right to individually and independently question and theorize the universe that surrounds us on those paths. And in my opinion, you don’t have to be anyone, outside of the person that you are, to be a part of a genuine, authentic participation, because I don’t believe that worldly possessions, abstract or physical, are tangible enhancers of the human perception. I think the potential character of the human DNA is priceless; regardless of the number of followers who get behind it. If there is one thing that I have learned from all of this, it’s that everyone has a voice that deserves to be heard, but the availability of the megaphones tend to be more elitist, but the absence of a megaphone should not mean the absence of your voice. It might not be as loud, but that in no way means that it is any less important, whether you’re a truck driver, a ditch digger, the Governor of Alaska, or the President of United States. If the Constitution or the Founding Fathers intended to imply anything at all, that notion has to be it, because there is nothing American or Democratic about the selectiveness/elitism of opportunistic distribution through genetic or ideological entitlements.
I haven’t done anything in this book that all of you are not capable of doing on your own, which is seeing the world through my eyes, and describing the possibilities of that world in my words. It’s a process that I would like to see more people get involved with on a major level. Some of the best things in our lives have often arisen from those unlikely contenders and contestants who weren’t lucky enough or popular enough to be awarded a pageant crown or a megaphone. When we allow ourselves to become mesmerized by the proverbial Red Herring, we can easily become blinded to the undecorated usefulness of common sense. As a Realacrat, I try hard not to fall into that trap.
Now politically, I touch on everything that’s underneath the political sun, from Israel and Palestine to Rush Limbaugh and President Obama. I talk about Women’s Rights, American jobs, Democrats and Republicans, green technology, religion, racism, sexism, homosexuality, poverty, street gangs, abortion, the failing education system, immigration reform, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the size and relevance of government as a whole, September 11th, China, the middle-class, the media, all-around hypocrisy, and the Fear of Being Challenged on many levels.
This was only intended for my friends on Facebook. I never had any intentions of going national or worldly with this Realacrat ideology. I only had in mind to share my views with all of you, not necessarily the entire world. So no, I haven’t had any hopes of ever sitting on Oprah’s couch. I’m not Sarah Palin, and I’m not Glenn Beck. I’m just an obscure individual from Facebook, and I’m realistic enough to accept that. Unfortunately, it’s not the relevance of the ideology held by the individual. It’s the relevance of the individual that holds the ideology, and that’s just the world that we live in. I’m not naive enough to believe that I can change it, but I’m also not naïve enough to allow it to change me, by convincing me that I have to accompany it, and that is the crux of being a Realacrat and the antithesis of the Fear of Being Challenged! In the end, you will leave with more than you arrived with if you decide to challenge the Fear of Being Challenged if you decide to read this book. It’s not perfectly done, but it’s ideologically as good as I could make it as an independent author.
The fear of being challenged was really the fear of someone else’s success, the fear of my own possible defeat, and the fear of losing my influential grip. As long as I had the entire world playing from my rigged deck of cards, I was always in complete control of who won and who lost, which is actually a fear of the freedoms of democracy and the fear of being challenged! Scripted-Capitalism is a very lucrative venture for the person who writes the script, but it crumbles like the Berlin Wall when a new script is introduced, because someone dared to seek change!
~The Fear of Being Challenged
Bryian R.
I’d rather learn about all of the things that I fear, instead of fearing all of the things that I could learn! ~The Revoner
I’d rather walk alone with the truth, as opposed to leading the crowd with a lie! ~The Revoner
11:47 pm
It’s such a load of bullshit when people try to label Islamic extremists as ‘not TRUE muslims’. Bin Laden was as Muslim as humanly possible. That isn’t to say that all Muslims are as he was, only that the more into Islam you get, the more like Bin Laden you become. The same is true for Christian extremism. But we need to stop pretending that either of these bronze age superstitions are peaceful, or that they have any place in the 21st century.
7:24 pm
You are as ignorant as you pretend to be intelligent. Do not make an argument until you have studied up my friend. I can not speak for Islam, but Jesus, the central focus of Christianity said “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword” as well as numerous times saying one must “turn the other cheek.” Christianity has had it’s share of bloodshed, but even today it is viewed as wrong. You say they have no place in the 21st century, but let me ask you, if no afterlife exists then what reason does one have to live? Why should I not be selfish and take everything for myself if I’m just going to die in the end. The idea of heaven creates a reason for many to act in the well being of society. Without any faith or belief in something greater for those who do good then society would never have developed as past societies and present would be driven not by the want to cure the sick, or feed the hungry, but to gain as much money as possible at the cost of others.