The intellectual and the resistance

Many writers have delved into the issue of the intellectual and his relationship with the authority or the masses, and have addressed his role and what should be done, and have elaborated on setting specifications for him, and have filled Gramsci, for example, with analysis and mention, and have insisted on the concept of commitment and alignment with the resistance... and the talk has continued to explode here and there.

We say: There is a deep and natural alliance and connection between the intellectual and the revolution, in its broadest sense. The intellectual cannot deserve this title unless he is completely and unconditionally biased towards the people and their causes in the face of all enemies. This is not related to a specific time or the time of the revolution and resistance, as much as the intellectual always sides with his people and their aspirations, preoccupied with at least two things: the first is to stand with the people without hesitation or justification, and the second is to express through his creativity the spirit of (his people), that is, the people and their dreams, far from factionalism, regionalism and the whims of the politician. By intellectual here I mean anyone who is preoccupied or works with creativity, without neglecting any of its forms.

Perhaps the intellectual who is still besieged by the authorities, parties, politicians, tribalism, geography, functional religion and extremists, has been absorbed and monopolized by the "authorities" that practice all forms of terror, abortion and alienation. In other words, the intellectual is being aborted by placing him in molds of monotony and regulation, and he is forced under the pressure of the job, the pursuit of a livelihood, and fear for his job, and political, social and intellectual formulas are imposed on him, so that he believes in them, adopts them and generalizes them.

However, I see, along with many others, that there are three cultures: a negative culture, a participatory culture, and a proactive culture. The intellectual is closer to proactive and participatory culture when he creates his creativity while at a distance from all the political, linguistic, and intellectual authorities that are ready, prepared in advance, spent, and fascist.

The intellectual who lived without levers, laws to protect him, and a free space struggles until he achieves his goal, because creativity is the last land on which he can dream, and he looks forward to seeing his principles and aspirations on the path to realization and presence.

The creative person is closer to freedom when he continues his role in aligning with people and expressing them, meaning that creativity is freedom. However, if the creative person stops his mission, he stops being free and enters the darkness of slavery, I mean the slavery of the reality governed by the grip of the authoritarian regime, whoever it may be!

In every resistance we see, which seeks to confront the occupation or the oppressive regime, it is obvious that the creative person, with his decisive qualities, stands with it and with the people without question. The intellectual’s discourse should go beyond denunciation, condemnation and helpless reporting, but rather he should dive into the heart of the fire, to move its hands and point to it, to kill it, to sharpen the spirits, and open the fronts to their blazing and luminous breadth. That is why it seems strange when the creative person sides with the regime or the enemy, or justifies them, or casts doubt on those who resist, because the creative person, here, loses the intuitive, spontaneous and natural aspect of the requirements of his position. The creative person, here, is also either subject to enticement or intimidation, meaning that he has been bought or silenced by force and marginalized. If the process of buying him has taken place, the creative person has lost the most important pillar of his specifications, which is “conscience”, and in its absence he loses the quality of creativity, because the content of his creativity is… Fake, unreal, deceitful, hypocritical, or at best a venting. However, if it is muzzled, pursued, and submitted, it will have lost one of the most important qualities of creativity, which is the ability to confront, penetrate, penetrate, and challenge, which is ideological audacity or intellectual courage and transcendence.

We have seen many "independent" intellectuals who did not utter a single word in the face of what was happening, and who have no relation to the horrific events taking place! Which makes these people subservient and paid to the suspicious pressure organization, and they play a cosmetic role for it! And they leave a hurtful void. The strange thing, at this time, is that a "significant" number of intellectuals identify, adopt and even unite with the orientalist, false and unjust sayings of the West, in search of crumbs... which makes this intellectual completely empty of his content and alienated from his roots. These people thought that the recognition of the dominant culture would give them presence! But they forget that the intellectual must be the conscience of his people, and the one who expresses the aspirations and dreams of his nation, because he is not independent in the face of the massacre, and he does not have the luxury of neutrality, and he will lose his moral steadfastness, and history will question him. We do not need his cognitive awareness, his cultural meanings, or his aesthetic suggestions.

The creator’s bias towards his family and audience is not just sympathy, but rather a firm, principled and decisive position that must be evident in all circumstances.

The true and courageous creator often stands with the revolution when it is in its early stages, because this is his natural place and expected role, because the audience looks at him as a natural owner of this role, and to form a lever, guide, supporter, motivator and attractor of the audience, and here the creator is a vanguard, dedicating this characteristic to himself, and deserves it with merit. As for the creator in the stage of the revolution and during its explosion, he is in a new stage of sorting, because the matter is no longer theorizing and taking a verbal position or free solidarity, but rather direct and intimate engagement in the revolution itself, side by side with all the people, and with the different abilities that distinguish the creator. If he is a musician, he must play for the revolution, if he is a poet, let him chant for it, if he is a theorist, let him stand with it without equivocation or ambiguity, and if he is an actor, let him make the squares a stage for him and his audience, deepening his relationship with them and merging with all their details. Here, it is not permissible to be satisfied with the theoretical positions he took before the revolution, otherwise the creative person will appear to have two faces, or he will market words without any basis, and he will fail the first practical exam.

Let us note that collective consciousness during a revolution is a distinct consciousness, and differs from it in typical and monotonous cases, because consciousness in normal cases may be directed or misled by the media or others, but in the stage of revolution, resistance and confrontation, consciousness is vibrant, alive, free and alert, and thus the position it expresses is not a search of consciences, but rather a selection that possesses the right to a decisive response free of courtesy, moderation or justification, meaning that collective consciousness has the right to respond to those who demonized and distorted it and accused it of vices, frivolity and adventure, in hypocrisy to the ruler or the occupation, whatever their justifications and miserable arguments. The matter is not a disagreement over opinion or convictions, but rather a selection between right and wrong. There is no room for saying; This is freedom of opinion, or the right of every citizen or creative person to take the position he deems appropriate or to stand here or there, because freedom is a sublime value that only exists with the truth and in the face of falsehood.

The broken positions of some of the “great creative thinkers and activists” indicate a fundamental rift in the character of these people, and that their cognitive load is more like the load of saddlebags on the back of a horse, or closer to the bag of a magician than to a thinker or a careful guide, because he “mockerizes” the Palestinian dialect, and tries to laugh at the chins of the simpletons in covering up facts that cannot be covered.

I ask: Where do these people get their culture, creativity and stances from, if they do not stem from the authenticity and right of a living, ancient and progressive society? Were these people expecting the resistance to emerge from the halls of coordination, alienation and alienation, or from the spaces of normalizing rulers, or the heirs who plunder wealth and a history blacker than darkness and coal? Or should the resistance raise the slogans of financiers and exposed interests or the resounding fall into sectarianism and the interests of some regional countries and the theories of severance, father killing or purification of history?

Philosophy, in general, is one of the manifestations of human consciousness, but it is originally the result of a deep understanding that connects the private and the public, while here we see the broken “creative thinker” erasing the identity of the self, which is the private, and canceling it, and removing it from its true, deep roots, and wants to replace it with a philosophy of the distant and the universal human, or to bring the human in his enemy, under the pretext of not perpetuating the conflict... which is not divided originally... for each philosophy has its own essence, meaning that our culture, resistance, and philosophy stem from our self, and are created in our space by intertwining with its surroundings, to reach the human with its own flavor and features, and in a way that achieves its just aspirations.