|
In four earlier articles published under the titles ‘’The Collapse of the Mubarak Regime and the Re-birth of Egypt’’, ‘’Egypt in Crisis, Self-governed Cairo, and the Emergence of Egypt’s Civil Society’’, ‘‘Egypt – Mass Media Gave Fake Numbers of Protesters. Example: the New York Times Fallacy’’, and ‘’Egypt, Cairo in Turmoil: the Tahrir Square Facts, and the Freemasonic Mass Media Myths. An Insight’’, I expanded on the underlying reasons of the present socio-political upheaval in Egypt, and on the socio-political developments that took place in Cairo during the two weeks from 28 January to 11 February. I added that it would be very simplistic to establish a divide of the type ‘’civil, democratic society supporters vs. an autocratic regime’’, and I specified that for many long decades the Western mass media diffused worldwide an altered image of the Egyptian reality, thus helping the local regime myths remain intact in Egypt, and the global public opinion stay in mysteries. I also demonstrated that the global mass media gave false data to their readers and audiences as regards the number of protesters in Tahrir square, at Down Town Cairo. In the latest article of the series, I examined in detail the global mass media fake interpretation and deliberate falsification of the events occurred in Egypt, offering a striking contrast, namely the true reality of what occurred in Egypt versus the grave oversights, the criminal distortions and premeditated falsifications that have been propagated by the tyrannical mass media of the present global World Order. As I enumerated thirty three (33) points of distortion, I could not expand much on the reasons of the facts that I presented. As this article was commented by a shrewd reader in a Forum where it was re-published, I find it necessary to expand on the reasons behind the reaction of the Egyptian people. I will first republish the comment and then respond analytically. A Reader’s Comment and Questions as regards the Stance of the Egyptian People during the Tahrir Square Events, 28 January – 11 February (vigilantcitizen) By Xinette OK, I may accept your description of the Cairo's reality and I certainly believe in some kind of orchestration coming from foreign powers (NWO) but, at this point, I would really like to know why most Egyptians stayed indoors: Does it mean they 1) approved Mubarak regime? 2) They were just despairing about changes and so they submitted themselves to the status quo? 3) They didn't care about politics or what? Why the rais was compelled to resign (actually leave...) if the protest was not that widespread? And another question is what do you think about Mubarak and the deeds of his regime but - above all - what was the meaning of the ordinary people because that's what I want mostly know - in fact - If the people of Egypt really wanted/want changes they will fight also against consequent new, but still old school, tyrants-puppets. In this case we have seen the beginning of a real revolution, anyway it started! Thanks for all your information and I will certainly read your older posts, tomorrow, .... My Response to a Reader’s Questions Thank you for your comment! In my answer, I will focus on the following seven points for which you ask my opinion. 1. Did the Egyptians approve the Mubarak regime? Certainly not! They reviled and loathed the Mubarak regime terribly; I already expanded on this subject in my first article as per above. There must be no doubt that the Mubarak regime, despite its existing popular electoral basis (National Democratic Party / NDP supporters), and in spite of its docility toward the socio-economic elite, was terribly despised – even by numerous members of the said elite whose interests it so much serviced. For all purposes and intentions, I would not agree, for the entire period after the spring 2002, with any number given about the regime basis among the people, if it were higher than 10%; of course, this figure would be mostly made up by the regime’s popular electoral basis, the elite being very small. Judging on the regime’s popular basis, I would say that it was weaker than those of Gaddafi in Libya, Ali Abdallah Saleh in Yemen, and Abdelaziz Bouteflika in Algeria for different reasons. Furthermore, I support that the Mubarak regime was also weaker than the royal regimes of Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. As I already said, it survived for long, because the administration tolerated social disorder wherever this was meant as an expression of negative attitude toward the regime (e.g. disobeying traffic rules, etc.) . 2. Were the Egyptians just despairing about changes and so they submitted themselves to the status quo? Although one may imagine that a positive answer is the logical conclusion about three decades of Mubarak’s regime without any major insurgence, this would be wrong. At this point, one should add that there was indeed an exception in the apparent calmness of 30 years’ Mubarak rule, namely the Zawya al Hamra events back in the 90s. This case represents a monument of hypocrisy on the part of the Western, Freemasonic mass media that were ordered to cover the recent events so passionately and so extensively. Where were the criminal Western mass media at the time of the Zawya al Hamra events? Why did they not cover those events in the same manner and with the same zeal that they demonstrated in 2011? Most probably, because at the time, they were not ordered to do so... Why were the Western mass media not ordered to duly cover the Zawya al Hamra events? Certainly, because by that time the first stage of Freemasonic infiltration in Egypt had not been completed (if ever started), and because the end of Mubarak’s tenure in the 90s was not part of the evil Freemasonic agenda... To respond to this point, one should admit that the outright majority of the Egyptians did indeed want changes but, due to the oppressive regime, they failed to formulate them at the political level because any voice that would be perceived as ‘’challenging’’ by the omnipresent Internal Security agents would end up in the jail. One has to add that over the past decades, the various administrations were well aware of the fact that the easiest manner to voice an opposition to the regime was to give a fervent khutbah (Friday prayer sermon) of political contents; for this reason, an impressively great number of Internal Security agents attended the Friday prayers in different mosques across the country in order to monitor the dozens of thousands of sheikhs and to report on the contents of their sermons. Consequently, the jails were full of sheikhs identified as a challenge for the regime, and extra-judicially arrested. I would disagree with the assumption that the Egyptians submitted themselves to the status quo; in their minds, they rejected it totally. They were not despairing but viewing things very differently from what seems to be a modern Western European viewpoint. This subject pertains to the behavioural system of the Egyptians. Every nation, people and ethno-religious group is identified with a particular behavioural system, which reflects the indigenous culture, values, heritage, moral principles and considerations, as well as the ensuing stance toward life, nature and society. The catastrophic abandonment of Ethnography and its nefarious replacement by the highly ideologized, perverse, materialistic pseudo-doctrine of ‘’Social Anthropology’’ deprived the Western world from an accurate perception and a pertinent understanding of the entire world, and of each culture in particular. Not all the nations, peoples and ethno-religious groups react against or oppose a tyranny in the same manner – or (to put it otherwise) not all the nations proceed in the silly manner the French purportedly acted in 1789, the Germans supposedly comported themselves in 1848, and the Russians seem to have behaved in 1917. Through the aforementioned I also imply that the description of the above events that took place in Europe has been forged and distorted by the European Freemasonic academia, historians and political scientists, in the first place. Cultures are fundamentally based on religions and spiritual considerations, narratives and beliefs, and this is what the global Freemasonic tyranny that first prevailed in Europe and North America wants every human being to forget. For whatever the Mankind has been historically known as ascribed to, abiding by, and conform with, the present life is an introduction to the eternal Hereafter. This focal belief and conviction has always been at the epicentre of every human society’s deeds. Whatever the religion of every single person may be, our basic concepts and principles are religious / spiritual of origin, nature and contents. Our stance towards life, different from continent to continent and from nation to nation, is inherently religious / spiritual or simply it does not exist, and in its absence, we are mere ‘’animals’’. Revolution is not an Option for the Egyptians and for the Mankind in general. A spontaneous rejection of an undeserving ruler, an instantaneous rectification and elimination of a regime’s evildoings, and a momentary reassessment of the social order have nothing to do with what has been propagated since the 18th century among Western Europeans as ‘’revolution’’. This impervious, devious and atrocious concept is an inhuman, purely Freemasonic and Satanic invention geared to propel the erstwhile marginal Freemasonic Order to power, to destroy Christianity in Europe and other religions in other parts of the world, and to deform the Mankind spiritually, mentally, psychologically, behaviourally, and culturally. Revolution was not an Option for the Turks before 90 years, and Kemal Ataturk managed to introduce overwhelming changes and even establish a secular society without ‘’it’’. Despite the undeniable modernization of Egypt, in spite of the prevalence of a socio-economic order based on modern technology, and notwithstanding the advanced penetration of Western educational, cultural, economic and political ideas, the Egyptian society in all its parts remains today an entity characterized by s deep respect of traditional values, moral principles, and religious concepts. By rejecting the option of a ‘’revolution’’, today’s Egyptians do not acquiesce with the statu quo, but simply reject to open the Gates of Hell for their society. Change would come one day, but it should come in a correct way that would not spread confusion, chaos, negative feelings, and disorderly concepts. 3. Did / do the Egyptians care about politics? They certainly did and actually do, but in a balanced manner that greatly differs from the highly politicized and ideologized European and North American societies. A socio-economic comparison would help in this regard; the overlook of a country’s political life and the importance of the political life within a specific society differ greatly as per the labour force breakdown. When ca. 15 or 20% of a country’s labour force are employed in agriculture, certainly the political life will be different from that of (and differently viewed than in) a country whereby less than 2% are working in the primary sector. Furthermore, it would be wrong to over-magnify the importance of a country’s political life for the personal and professional life of each and every individual. Egypt is a country with millions of farmers (fellahin); life goes on for them, whether Mubarak stays or goes. Nature and faith are at the epicentre of a person’s material and spiritual life, and the political organization of the Egyptian society would not change the social order in which they live and the faith in which they believe. Maximizing the importance of a country’s political life for the personal and professional life of each and every individual is a way of being entrapped in the Freemasonic schemes that provide for the destruction of the Mankind; one would accurately describe it as self-victimization. 4. Why the Rais was compelled to resign (actually leave...) if the protest was not that widespread? Rais (President) Mubarak was compelled to leave because he probably felt a gun on his head – or he was told that this would be the case, if did not immediately leave – on the spur of the moment. This may sound extraordinary, but it is not; you may take the aforementioned statement either literally or metaphorically, but this matters not. It pertains to basic human intelligence; there is no need to conceptualize everything as per Hollywood movies, but if your country’s three – five top military come to tell you that they cannot guarantee your personal safety, you have to understand that you are already being targeted – even if you are a president. You then assess your real power and your ability to oppose the imminent and explicit threat, and you decide accordingly. The fact that less than 24 hours before the announcement of his departure, Mubarak addressed the Egyptian nation only to declare his determination to stay, bring the country to normalcy, guarantee the transition period, and leave after some months makes clear that an occurrence similar to the aforementioned took place in the Cairo presidential building, early in the afternoon of Friday 11 February 2011. In every country, the political life consists indeed in the domain of the utmost cynicism, and it is very different from what the beautifying efforts of the mass media let average people believe. As you say, the protest was not widespread, and actually no one would have expected Mubarak to step down or even to accept changes, but as I pointed out in my latest article (as per above), the burning of the police stations and the police officers’ seclusion in privacy deprived the embattled president and his administration of their basic tool of oppression. It is pertinent to assume that early in the afternoon of Friday 28 January Mubarak would have laughed with the idea of stepping down because of 30000 people protesting in Tahrir square, particularly because in the earlier manifestations (in the week 23 – 27 January) fewer people (max. 15000 people) had been gathered in Cairo’s central square. What made the difference were the international mass media involvement, and the tough international pressure which was really unexpected by the regime, and definitely unprecedented. Of course, despite the undeniable foreign involvement, Mubarak would have stayed long in power, had the Egyptian police not been literally dismantled. At this point, it is noteworthy to state that in numerous other cases of manifestations held in various countries against the local governments, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands or more than one million of people were gathered, the ridiculous Freemasonic puppets Cameron, Sarkozy, Obama, and their criminal peers did not interfere, simply because the local governments are controlled by the Freemasonic gangsters of the New World Order, and they therefore found no need to obstruct them. This illuminates the Freemasonic biased mind and partial attitude, unveiling the evident and real threat that the Freemasons pose for the entire Mankind. Of course, the foreign involvement did not take only the form of embarrassing telephone calls and expressed threats, but it can also be detected in the compromising stance advised by various subordinates, advisors, ministers, diplomats and top army officers. In this regard, Egypt is not a particular case of course, because people in high positions of administrations across the globe have been systematically bribed and comprehensively induced to betray their own countries for shameful material benefits by the evil Freemasonic organization. Whenever during this crisis an adviser or minister suggested to Mubarak to comply with the advice of the above statesmen who are all Freemasonic puppets, you can safely deduce that this adviser or minister had previously been bribed by the evil Freemasonic organization, and that by so advising his president, the shameful subordinate merely acted instinctively, carrying out – against his own country – the task ordered by his hidden (and real) superiors. However, one should also add that, as early as the evening of Friday 28 January, Mubarak had lost in the battle of symbols: the burning of the headquarters of the National Democratic Party was a terribly bad hit. 5. What do you think about Mubarak and the deeds of his regime? Well, it was a multi-faceted and multi-levelled failure. Clearly! Mubarak’s three decades of unadulterated ineptitude, inaptitude, and inertia is a global example to avoid. The top lesson Mubarak offered Egypt and many other African, Asiatic, European, Latin American, and Oceanic countries and independent or subjugated nations is triple: A. You cannot possibly trust international counterparts asking you to implement any option of foreign policy that is rejected by the country’s population. B. You cannot possibly survive by servicing other governments and administrations under any circumstances whatsoever. C. You cannot possibly exist by believing, accepting or even tolerating colonial myths and preconceived fabrications under any circumstances whatsoever. 6. What was the meaning of the ordinary people? They certainly wanted Mubarak out; they certainly did not want the change to cause any trouble to the country’s national unity and social calmness; they certainly did not want to undertake a revolution; and they certainly wished all or most of the highly positioned people in the army, the parliament and the government to behave as true patriots placing the national interest above the personal benefit and act accordingly. 7. If the people of Egypt really wanted / want changes, they will fight also against consequent new, but still old-school, tyrants-puppets. In this case we have seen the beginning of a real revolution, anyway it started! I will answer this statement, concluding the present article. Yes, they wanted / want changes; yes, they (will) object any governmental effort to replay the old policies, with the elimination of the former head of state being the sole concession to the people. Yes, there will be a very different Egypt in the years ahead. But there will be no revolution. If the interfering forces manipulate their tools toward this direction, there will be no revolution, but chaos; but at the end, the Egyptian people will isolate the elements that, because of their cooperation with the Freemasonic statesmen of Europe and America, spread disorder in the country. The Egyptian people will certainly react either in the case of introducing a fake democracy geared to allow homosexuals to be formally married in Egypt or in the eventuality of dragging Egypt into a multilateral war against Israel. By this I don’t mean that the Egyptians in their outright majority accept the existence of the fake Zionist state; on the contrary. However, the solution of a problem must always be an act that does not create another problem. Throughout its - longer than five millennia - History, Egypt many times awaited long for a problem solution to be invented and / or implemented; but the solution never created another problem. The ages old, monotheistic doctrine of the Hermopolitan Ogdoad provided for that option, thousands of years before the Holy Quran be revealed. On the lessons taken from Mubarak’s 30 years of inertia I will further expand in another article. Note Picture: The Ogdoad and the Hermopolitan Doctrine antedate and herald Islam, while instructing faithful monotheistic believers that a solution never creates a problem.
Related Articles -
Egypt, Turkey, Ottoman Empire, Islam, Orientalism, Islamism, Pan-Arabism, colonialism, England, Italy, USA, Greater Middle East, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Sudan, Yemen,
| 
