1

The Nature of the Revolutionary Euphemist

An Essayed Opinion Article Written to the Daily Sabah

Omar Alansari-Kreger
In the Age of the Internet, there is no excuse for ignorance anymore. Any imaginable
curiosity that enters the mind can be keyed into an internet search engine. In seconds, we have
the potential to unlock millions of resources that cover vast territories of knowledge. The power
of information has been met by an existential dilemma; that is specifically defined as an
information overload. How much can we collectively process at one simultaneous moment?
Developments that shape current events taunt our common ability to react to each one. In such a
world, the wealth of information is daunting because our notions of a normal reality are
challenged daily. Thus, our ideas change with the winds of time. It is indicative of the human
experience. No matter how cynical the mind, each person has the applied capacity to learn
something new. The utility of knowledge is carried and maintained by a complex of diversified
information.
Human nature interferes with processes of knowledge accumulation. We make our entry
into the world as euphemists bent on the absolute effectuation of change. A mind that has been
conditioned to accept an ideological view of the world enters an area of reality with a
predisposed bias. An ideology of youth is often the most incubating. That is why youthful
ideologies are the most reactionary. For that specific reason, the world seems ripe for the taking.
Yet, the youthful perspective has yet to realize the outcome of a real world reality by virtue of its
inexperience. Things seem so plain and simple, but details of immense complexity are hidden by
things that are mundane, mediocre, and myopic. Innocuously, a youth is inclined to seek out a
reason to challenge the legitimacy of the status quo. After all, that describes the natural
inclination of the youth. An ideological reality must be discovered and accepted before it can be
embraced.
Youthful queries include such things as: how can people be content with oppression when
they can do something about it? The lessons of the Arab Spring in addition to the Occupy
Movements from around the world produced an abrupt conclusion about revolutionary
euphemisms. Rhetorically, the masses have an inclination that something is wrong, but lack
solutions that can effectuate the reforms they preach. Slogans that are chanted into the abyss of
revolution preserves the oppositional suspense of protestation. The Arab Spring failed because it
failed to develop an architectural blueprint for reform. Rather, it was a revolution of emotional
suspenseful-ness where one enraged point of view was exchanged for another. The chaos in
Libya in addition to the arrival of the Sisis Military Junta proves, rather sardonically, that the
Arab Spring was based on the right intentions, but ultimately defaulted in upholding a
sustainable paradigm for its own revolutionaries. The reality is that the real work of revolution
begins before governments are overthrown. Quasi governance forged out of revolutionary
damage control is the surest way to dictatorship.

Nonetheless, disappointments from youth are never truly forgotten. They are the
unkindled fire that can reawaken us with little to no warning. It must be argued that humans are
not born to be cynical. On the contrary! Cynics are disappointed idealists! As a matter of
circumstance, they accept an otherwise coercive reality that shuns the optimism of their
revolutionary youth. Therefore, it should be hardly surprising why revolutionary euphemisms are
so disenfranchising to a normal way of life. When a revolution runs out of ideas, it begins to
reinvent the wheel of sociological complacency within the same institutional establishment. That
describes the compromise that must be made in order to maintain the relevance of revolution. At
some point, we recognize the need to mature which is nothing short of growing up. A great many
of us will abandon the trek to reform and revolution. We are inclined to succumb to our cynical
monsters because we keep telling ourselves that this is the way how things are because that is
how they will always be. Civilizations are only functional when they possesses the architectural
dynamics of order. People abandon anarchy the moment they are saturated by it. There is this
realization that the abandonment of revolution ensures the constancy of providence.
Our emphatic outcries for a better world are sidelined; some permanently. The road to a
platform of hopeful suspense is first and foremost a psychological affair; it is the ultimate rush
for the revolutionary euphemist. Once crushed, hopes for that idea of a better world are
destroyed in the process. If we dare reawaken the inner revolutionary within, we display a
succinct reticence of entertaining another due to an acute fear of failure. Impatience is in our
nature. We have this inclination that results are instantaneously manifested which is one of the
main reasons why so many revolutions fail. We develop revolutions out of emotionalism, but
slogans and phrases alone are only symptomatic of societys big picture disparities which are
conceptually ambiguous. Each person has their own story to share which is revolutionary in its
own unique way; that is why causation to revolution is often an affair of personal determination.
Hence, a myriad of revolutions are nothing but extreme projections of human individuality.
People obsess over power because they do not want to be ignored and ruled over. For the
revolutionary euphemist, there is a great deal of power to be had when an average person takes
their voice to the stage. Conclusively, a cardinal law of revolution demands the following from
revolutionaries: individuals must prosecute the intentionality of revolution if they hope to
comprehensively apply its application. Slogans, phrases, and bylines of revolution change
nothing without a paradigm of developmental incrementalism; the latter signifies the architecture
of revolution. Changes are graduated into the norm over ingratiated periods of time which
reflects on the architectural integrity of civilization. It cannot be stressed enough, no revolution
can be substantiated without a sound sociological platform for change.