About a Revolution

We see Three Worlds. After reading his speech at the UN, it is clear that Ahmadinejad sees Three Estates. Ahmadinejad proclaims:

By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery...The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression?

Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council?

Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers.

On May 28, 1789, the Three Estates of France reached an impasse. The Third Estate, no longer satisfied with unequal representation and no longer willing to submit to the decrees of the unelected noblesse de robe, moved to solve the question of power once and for all. On June 13, the representatives (Communes) of the Third Estate put forth their plan of "equality and justice", but, inevitably, it was rejected by the privileged and powerful. Undeterred, the Third Estate unilaterally "verified" its own power and, a few days later, the Communes gave the oath heard round the world. Locked out of the Assembly by the King, the oath rang forth from, of all places, a tennis court. On a hot summer day at Versailles, France's historical losers swore "never to separate, and to meet wherever circumstances demand, until the constitution of the kingdom is established and affirmed on solid foundations."

Two hundred and seventeen years later, the same banner has been raised. But this time the stage is global, and the stakes are complete. Ahmadinejad "the Incorruptible" has brought the issue to the fore:

The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?

This is an argument meant to destroy--an argument, once uttered, that cannot be euthanized. Soon, Ahmadinejad's lone voice will turn into Thirty. They will ask in unison, "Why not us?", and we will have no answer.

The unholy alliance of Grievance, Jealousy and Islam has become geopolitical. Welcome to the Revolution:

1st. What is the third estate? Everything.
2nd. What has it been heretofore in the political order? Nothing.
3rd. What does it demand? To become something therein.

You can't argue with that. Can you?