Sunday, February 20, 2011

Egypt's Future: How to Build a Free Nation (Part II)

by Dr Sam Holliday

Continued from Part I

United States Misconceptions since 1945
Before offering a conceptual framework for a new Egypt it is necessary to comment on some of the misconceptions, which have dominated the thinking in the foreign policy establishment of the United States since 1945.

Those identifying with a nation must be responsible for what happens to their nation. Others can assist, but the leadership, dedication, vision, and energy must come from within.

There are several critical differences between building a nation and the creation of a state, or the expansion of an empire, or the formation of a federation.

- A state is based on coercion--by either force or law--and administration.

- Expanding an empire i.e. creating hegemony, requires a desire to dominate, superiority of armed forces that control territory, and ruthlessness.

- A federation requires agreement among its parts.

- A confederation is a state with considerable decentralization of authority to smaller self-governing units.

From these, Egyptians must determine the form of governance of the new Egypt. At the heart of the new Egypt will be the creation and maintenance of a common sense of identity from which behavior will be self regulated, and coercion will only be required against criminals and insurgents.

Attempting to persuade rival groups, prepared to use force to eliminate each other, to form a coalition government is not wise. This should not be attempted in Egypt. It is naive to treat factions, each of whom demand control of an all powerful centralized government, as parties in a system of parliamentary government based on checks and balances.

This was the error the United States made from 1945 to 1947 in its policy toward China. The United States made the same error in Vietnam, the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan—and many other places. Obsession with (1) authority of the central government, (2) “rule of law” to replace custom and tradition, and (3) “democracy” defined as universal suffrage and elections, have caused this same error to be repeated again and again since 1945.

Ideological tunnel vision of American policy makers, who wanted others to have the benefits of American democracy and economic system, have often squandered billions of dollars and produced meager results.

Economic development of the kind practiced by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), often hinders more than it contributes. It has left a trail of destruction and poverty. It has propped up corrupt and chaotic governments. Many of the dams and highways it has financed have damaged the environment and destroyed social patterns of cooperation. It has contributed to the debt of many of the poorest countries.

Economic development has too often been determined by desires of central governments in their attempts to increase the state’s power. This view of economic development needs to be replaced with economic change to provide a better life for the people of Egypt.

Economic development in Egypt is essential; however, it should not focus on centrally controlled projects financed by an external source. There should be primary economic development, controlled at the local level, which provides the basic necessities of food, water, and shelter. There should be secondary economic development that provides the education and training so that Egypt can take advantage of technologic changes in production, distribution, financing, and marketing so as to benefit from an integrated worldwide capitalistic economic system.

The creation of a nation is a long--several generations at least--process; the maintenance of a nation is a never-ending process. This is at odds with the American desire for a quick fix. Today there are many examples of how long it takes to build a nation, even under favorable conditions. Spain after 500 years is still trying to absorb the Basques and the Catalans. After 300 years as the British Isles, Ireland broke away in 1922; both Wales and Scotland still have separatist movements.

Although some countries in South America and Asia seem to have developed national identities, it is difficult to find any true nation in Africa. Will Canada breakup? After extreme efforts in Germany and Italy to build nations around common languages, the primary identification of many Germans and Italians remain with something other than their nation-state.

Both building and preventing the decline of a nation is an art requiring the balancing of many factors. It is not something that can be done quickly or by following a specific recipe, and foreigners certainly cannot do it. However, a realistic conceptual framework of nationbuilding can be a useful tool for Egyptians as they tackle the difficult task of building a new Egypt.

A Conceptual Framework for a New Egypt
Egyptians should pay continual attention to four interrelated tasks:
  • Achieve Security
  • Provide effective local authority
  • Organize and motivate
  • Satisfy aspirations
Achieving a security shield is the first task since it is a prerequisite for the other three tasks. However, security cannot be seen as an end in itself. It is merely a means to the end of building a new Egypt. Also, if the focus was primarily on the creation of an Egyptian state, actions to establish centralized control by the police and the Army might be carried to the extreme--such actions would actually hinder identity with the Egyptian nation since they would not produce a self-regulating equilibrium.

Security is achieved when the various levels of government have a monopoly on the use of force, and no group within Egyptian territory is willing to use force to achieve political ends. In the new Egypt internal security will primarily be the responsibility of the police of the districts, villages, and neighborhoods; however, these police must be integrated into an alliance coordinated by the central government in Cairo. In addition, the central government would have the Army to protect Egypt’s interests and to ensure stability within Egypt.

Any group committed to the use of force to weaken or overthrow the established government must be neutralized. For Egypt this would mean insurgents of either the left (neo-Marxists) or the right (Islamists). First of all, this requires an effective intelligence system that will allow rapid response to any attempt at intimidation by any insurgent group, or payment to it.

When terrorism becomes a tool, a capability greater than that appropriate for policing ordinary crime must be added. This will usually require some temporary limitations on civil rights and the legal system. Finally, if insurgents gain control of a part of Egypt’s territory, control must be regained, using both the police and the Army, and the leaders of the insurgent group must be either killed or confined.

A second task for the new Egypt is to provide effective local authority. Each individual lives in a concrete, human, face-to-face world of clear and specific events and situations. Aspirations and an unseen environment may shape spiritual and material life of an individual, but he knows through what he sees, hears, smells and feels. This task provides local leadership.

Leadership which is: alert for signs of problems, inequalities and injustices; able to use initiative and flexibility to win loyalty and produce results; capable of countering acts of intimidation, violence, and destruction; able to see that everyone can earn a decent living; able to accomplish primary economic development; loyal to the established institutions; capable of educating each individual with values which blend freedom, ambition, duty and responsibility as well as the skills needed for economic improvement.

The third task of the new Egypt is to organize and motivate the people. The new Egyptian nation will be no more than Egyptian citizens welded together by a common destiny that binds into an active whole, yesterday, today and tomorrow. This task creates and maintains shared values, attitudes, habits and goals which shape the institutions through which a nation lives and grows: patterns of cooperation and conflict; the fabric of sanctioned relationship; the unseen lines of magnetic strength which link, join and confine; the elusive cultural environment. This task creates kinship and facilitates both primary and secondary economic development.

The fourth task of the new Egypt is to satisfy aspirations of Egyptian citizens. The fuel of progress is the never-ending attempt to satisfy aspirations. Economic development is a critical part of satisfying aspirations, but it must be joined with belief.

At this time Islam provides the strongest belief system in Egypt, but the Islamists would return Egypt to the 4th century. The belief of modern Muslims is not strong enough to effectively challenge the Islamists—nor is that of any other religion. Therefore, the only belief system that can provide a stronger horse than Islam is Egyptian nationalism and patriotism. The Egyptian military are well suited to use this belief system to neutralize the Islamists.

Aspirations can unite people in common effort; yet, aspirations can set one against another, preventing progress. Satisfying aspirations is an elusive, two faced task. Sole concern with satisfying aspirations can only result in turmoil, frustration and bitterness; as past aspirations are approached new and more demanding ones are invented.

This task means that Egypt must have its own, unique, ideology. Egypt must reject the ideologies of the Islamists and the neo-Marxists, since both would enslave Egyptians to the control of non-Egyptians. However, this task, just like the first task of achieving a security shield, must not be carried to an extreme.

If this conceptual framework is to be useful for the new Egypt, actions to accomplish these four tasks must be interrelated, and the building and maintenance of the new Egyptian nation must be seen as a never-ending process.

Egyptians need to remember the meaning of the Sacred Red, White, and Black of their flag. They must be prepared to fight against the ideologies of the neo-Marxists and Islamists. Americans cannot do any of this for the Egyptians, but they must understand and support Egyptians as they do about accomplishing the four tasks of building a new Egypt.

Copyright © 201 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.

Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at

For more essays and articles published by Dr Sam Holliday on Politeia  please refer to our file on Articles,  "The Armiger Cromwell Center"


- "Who is a Patriot"
- "The Mandate of Heaven" (on authority and sovereignty)

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Egypt's Future: How to Build a Free Nation (Part I)

by Dr Sam Holliday

On the night of 10-11 February 2011 the Egyptian military staged a bloodless coup to remove President Hosni Mubarak, following two weeks of turmoil and 19 hours of chaos. They promised to carry out the will of the Egyptian people. However, there is no way of knowing who will emerge to lead Egypt, or what the role of the military will be in the long run. For now the regime retains its power, for the aims of the younger military officers of the regime were the same as the crowds, i.e. to get rid of Mubarak and the patriarchs. The regime is a complex centered on the military but includes many civilians in the business and the government bureaucracies.

Since there is no consensus on Egypt’s future, the coming months and years will be a struggle between competing visions. Will it become a real revolution, or will the regime hold its control? This will be determined by the youth. What should be the policy of the United States during this move to a new Egypt—and a new Middle East?

FForemost should be the realization that the new Egypt is the responsibility of Egyptians, not Americans. Egyptians must establish a climate of order and satisfaction, they must rebuild Egypt’s economy, and Egyptians must determine a form of governance based on their own customs and traditions.

Also, the United States must not repeat the errors made, by the foreign policy establishment, around the world since 1945.

U.S. Foreign Policy Regarding Egypt
In relations with Egypt, the United States should do what it can to advance Sacred Red, White, and Blue/Black—the colors in the American and Egyptian flags.
Sacred Red symbolizes the courage, practicality, and duty of Moses, Saint Paul, Oliver Cromwell and George Washington.
White symbolizes the compassion, purity, and honor of Jesus, Buddha, and John Adams.
Blue/Black symbolizes the unity, shared identity, and administrative skill of the Egyptian Pharaohs’ in linking humans with the divine, of Genghis Khan’s “blue sky”, and of America’s founders dreams.

This Red, White and Blue/Black must be integrated into a whole through checks and balances of principles, ideals, individuals, factions, and institutions. The outcome should be the decentralization of power to achieve governance of, by and for the people, rather than the centralization of power in the hands of an elite in accordance with the Hegelian dialectic. Also the United States should do what it can to counter the threats of the socialist collectivism (Secular Red) and the social-political ideology of Islam (Green).

The waving of the Red, White, and Blue/Black flags of the United States and Egypt should be constant reminders that Americans and Egyptians are both in an existential struggle with true believers of both the right (Islamists) and the left (Neo-Marxists). The Egyptian youth were revolting against the paternalistic, unaccountable authority that as prevailed across the Middle East for thousands of years. It is essential to remember that free individuals, making judgments based on their inner compass, are hated by both the Islamists and the Neo-Marxists; some may consider them political opposites, yet they share the Hegelian view that authoritarian control, by true believers, of a collective is the best form of governance.

Democracy is a noble goal; however, since the word “democracy” has so many different meanings, it can be fool’s gold.

For Egypt U.S. foreign policy should seek: (1) a version of democracy which allows Egyptian citizens to determine their own destiny, (2) a constitution which maintains stability and economic development, (3) the recognition of how technology has changed communication, and (4) citizenship which is a privilege for those who give primacy to the interests of Egypt.

In Egypt the aim should be individual Egyptian citizens with the free will to determine their own destiny; the aim should not be equality of outcomes among individuals or factions.

The goal should be equality before God, equality before the law, and equality of opportunity; the goal should not be so called social justice, which takes from the haves and gives to the have-nots. There should be civil rights, given to individuals by God, which protect life, freedom, and property as individuals pursue happiness as determined by Egyptians—not human rights as determined by others.

There should be processes and procedures to ensure long-term governance of, by and for the Egyptian citizens--not processes, procedures and elections to insure compliance with specific written documents. “One man, one vote, one time” must be prevented. A future collective totalitarian state—of either the left (socialistic) or of the right (Islamic) must be avoided.

Consensus on a social contract (expressed in customs and traditions and also in a written constitution) is necessary, but not sufficient. Respect for the rule of law, political parties to champion competing points of view, freedom of speech, freedom of political expression, and freedom of assembly, and freedom of association are all needed to insure the Secular Authority of the state.

In addition there must also be primary economic development to ensure that there is adequate food, water and shelter and that the poorest aspire for a better life. Also there must the secondary economic development so that Egyptians think they are the economic equals of their peers and can see themselves as a worthy descendents of their 7,000 year history. Yet such worldly accomplishments must be in equilibrium with Sacred Authority, i.e. a common identity and shared principles and ideas which provide an inner compass to guide judgments between right and wrong, good and bad.

In the past when communication and transportation were more restricted national identity was based on cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious convictions. However, the global village of today and tomorrow make this impractical. Any future Egyptian nation must be based on shared principles, ideals and beliefs. This makes it necessary to exclude those individuals, groups, and parties who primarily identity with belief in a collective of either the left (neo-Marxists) or the right (Islamists)—as well as those who give their primarily allegiance to another state or to world governance.

Therefore, Egyptian citizenship must become a privilege to be earned, not a right of residency that allows master manipulators to control others. Universal human rights can remain an ideal, but the civil rights of Egypt must govern the behavior of Egyptians. Only those who have pledged their loyalty to, and demonstrated their patriotism for, Egypt should be allowed to participate in the struggles to determine Egypt’s future.

What the United States has Done Since 1945
Since 1945, inept actions by the United States in many countries has squandered billions of dollars, contributed to the deaths of millions, created poverty, and caused the loss of many opportunities. Most of this was done with the best of intentions and humanitarian instincts. Often these were the consequences of unquestioned preconceptions regarding how to build a state or nation. Such preconceptions have dominated the thinking of Americans, in and out of government, who have shaped U.S. foreign policy.

Will this be admitted? Certainly not. Can this be proven? Probably not. Most likely, articles and studies will continue to debate what happened, and why, with the "history" presented determined by the preconceptions of the authors.

In the past many have questioned the appropriateness of the United States being involved in building states and nations around the world. And today this debate continues. During such debates regarding Egypt it is essential that the difference between building a state and building a nation be understood.

State building is the creation and maintenance of legitimate authority, a legal system, and administrative capability to govern territory. Nationbuilding is the creation and maintenance of a sense of common identity among a people. Also it is important to recognize the reasons for the successes and failures made in the name of “nation-building”.

Obviously there have been successes since 1945. Changes in Western Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and even parts of Eastern Europe have been more positive than negative. Yet such progress has primarily been the result of efforts by the people of those countries, and circumstances unique to them. Nevertheless, preconceptions about building states and nations have hindered improvement in much of the world since 1945.

The Preconceptions
Unquestioned preconceptions about the creation and decline of nations were forged during World War II. The horrors of that war were blamed on nationalism and the nation-state. This overlooked the fact that paranoia and unspeakable crimes are to be found throughout history. The horrors committed by tribes, sects, and empires probably did affect fewer people, but they were no less repulsive.

Human beings need beliefs that offer a sense of order, that overcome the fears of an arbitrary environment, that give people some hope of control over random events. Group identity and religion have always been the two main sources of such belief systems. Moreover, human progress has depended on how group identities (be they family, tribe, sect, class, religion, or nation) relate to political structures having a monopoly on the use of force.

Human progress accelerated when the nation-state became the focus of personal loyalties, social order, political institutions, and economic coordination, because it was able to combine the cohesiveness of the nation with the legal authority and administrative capability of the state. However, with this progress came the excesses of integral (or totalitarian) nationalism.

Since World War II three contending ideologies (all called democratic) have been offered as replacements for nationalism: capitalism based on merit, communism based on equality of outcomes, and internationalism based on universal human rights. Yet none of the three have been able to create a sense of identity, vigor, innovation, and climate of order to equal that created by nation-states.

None have provided the new political form to replace the nation-state. This suggests that as a political structure the nation-state is superior to a multicultural state, or a coercion based state. It also suggests that any new world order must be of small nation-states rather than the centralization of power in world governance.

The challenge is achieve common identity among Egyptians yet to prevent the excesses and extremes, which have at times been associated with integral nationalism. Therefore, there is a need for a conceptual framework for building an Egyptian nation, which will be held together by sovereign nationalism—not by the integral nationalism of Egypt’s past statism.

Integral nationalism is intolerant and ethnocentric. Integral nationalism is linked to totalitarianism, and demands the highest loyalty be to the state in accordance with the views of Hegel. Integral nationalism seeks cultural and religious uniformity, plus institutional and economic unity. It tends to arise from religious or utopian beliefs, internal economic and political difficulties, or historical rivalries. The goal of integral nationalism is uniformity of purpose, appearance, beliefs, attitudes, and prejudices. It is linked to the statism, which many Islamic countries took from Western culture during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Sovereign nationalism seeks the ideals expressed in American Declaration of Independence. Sovereign nationalism is an expression of the human desire for freedom and self-government. It places an emphasis on popular sovereignty, a constitution, decentralization, and civil rights—it is legitimized by a social contract between a people and their state. Sovereign nationalism is often a melting pot resulting in E Pluribus Unum (of many, one). It is sovereign nationalism that offers hope for the Egypt—and the 21st century. It can provide peace, security, self-government, and stability by creating loyalties, emotional ties, and a common sense of identity among citizens.

United States Misconceptions since 1945
Before offering a conceptual framework for a new Egypt it is necessary to comment on some of the misconceptions, which have dominated the thinking in the foreign policy establishment of the United States since 1945. Those identifying with a nation must be responsible for what happens to their nation. Others can assist, but the leadership, dedication, vision, and energy must come from within. (...)

Copyright © 201 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.

Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at

For more essays and articles published by Dr Sam Holliday on Politeia  please refer to our file on Articles,  "The Armiger Cromwell Center"


- "Who is a Patriot"
- "The Mandate of Heaven" (on authority and sovereignty)

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Egypt Fallen to the Unholy Alliance (updated)

Updates Feb. 15, 2011

UPI: "Muslim Brotherhood steps into politics"
- Associated Content: "Google Egypt: Ghonim Not the Only Tie to Protests"
- Pundicity: "Pyramid Scheme", by Clifford May

It's no secret to The New York Times. They are very open and upfront about it. But then again, the paper doesn't think a close cooperation between the Left and Islamists is any problem.

Cartoon by Mike Lester
Except if Glenn Beck is devoting a program to it. Then Media Matters steps in to deny what anyone with a pair of eyes can see for himself.

Watch the Glenn Beck program after Pres. Mubarak stepped down. Oh, and get this:
"they aspire to a Western-style constitutional democracy where civic institutions are stronger than individuals" ... 
... that would be a socialist collective! Does that sound to you like a Jeffersonian democracy based on individual rights? They have no idea what they're talking about! These kids are clueless! The NYT again (our emphasis):
In the process many have formed some unusual bonds that reflect the singularly non-ideological character of the Egyptian youth revolt, which encompasses liberals, socialists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood
“I like the Brotherhood most, and they like me,” said Sally Moore, a 32-year-old psychiatrist, a Coptic Christian and an avowed leftist and feminist of mixed Irish-Egyptian roots. (...) Islam Lotfi, a lawyer who is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Youth, said his group used to enlist others from the tiny leftist parties to stand with them in calling for civil liberties, to make their cause seem more universal. Many are now allies in the revolt (...)
So that's the MO. You throw around a few Western sounding labels about 'democracy', 'freedom' and 'diversity', pretending cooptation towards a common cause and no one is asking questions. One Egyptian president - Anwar Sadat - was murdered by that bunch!

In the last couple of weeks the media have been jumping through hoops to picture the Muslim Brotherhood a respectable organisation in the eyes of the world.

A few enigmas that have sprung up over the last few weeks have been cleared up. Other mysteries have taken their place. Some are exceedingly disturbing!

Cartoon by Chip Bok
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence sat in front of a House Intelligence Committee this week and asserted publicly that the Muslim Brotherhood was a “largely secular” organization.
The term “Muslim Brotherhood” ... is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.
That would be the same Clapper who was uninformed about what was the great news on that particular day. Either the US 'intelligence community' has suffered a collective stroke, or they are exceedingly bad actors. I can't go as yet with Alex Jones' latest conspiracy theory, that it is in fact the CIA's invisible hand that's behind this cascade of uprisings.

On the other hand the Obama administration was seen flat-footed with Egypt's uprising. That perception was covered by the pretense that they had been supporting pro democracy groups all along! But that would be Bush's evil Neocons.

Obama's foreign policy was primarily framed by the narrative of 'thou shalt not foist Western style, liberal democracy on others'. Others may [sarc on] like their regimes slightly tyrannical. Who are we to judge?! There isn't just one true democracy. There are as many forms of democracy as there are people! [sarc off]. This has prompted the administration to cut funding as soon as it had changed the drapes in the Oval Office.

The information black hole sparked the institution a year ago of the bi-partisan Working Group on Egypt. It informed and warned the White House publicly and repeatedly, that Egypt was approaching a turning point and that the status quo was untenable. The first sentence of its opening statement read: "Egypt is at a critical turning point."

It should come as no surprise that the stooge for the unholy alliance is the 'social justice' loving former head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei. The safety of the world has been in this man's hands for years, during which he's been whitewashing and covering up the Iranian nuke program.

It is also no coincidence that both George Soros and ElBaradei both sat on the Board of Trustees of the International Crisis Group, one of Soros' agitation groups. His fingerprint is all over this revolt, as we've seen in "The Nature of the Revolution Is Socialist, Stupid!"

Here's how these misguided kids negotiate with the Muslims Brotherhood!
"On the question of alcohol — forbidden by Islam — he suggested that drinking was a private matter but that perhaps it should be forbidden in public."
They seriously believe the Brotherhood is going to stand for that! These people are going to be crushed. On the question whether the Left or the Islamists will prevail, my money is firmly on the Brotherhood.

As to what will be the model for this 'democratic' society? One Egyptian jacobin is with Tareq Ramadam on that: well, it's Turkey of course. As it happens that secular country, since the Islamists came to power, has been slowly sinking into an abyss, at the bottom of which is Islamofascist Iran! It was Turkey that aided and abetted the Gaza (r)aid flotilla for crying out loud!

Read in this article in Wall Street Journal, "The Secret Rally That Sparked an Uprising" how the revolt was pulled of, with a little help from a little worm, Google Inc. executive, Wael Ghonim.
Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

Well, will wonders never cease? And some are thinking the Left is against military dictatorships. But that should read of course: the Left is against any military junta, other than those they believe can be exploited to their advantage. Long live the Egyptian junta!

The same is true of Obama's neutrality and strict non-interference doctrine: that would be applicable to Iran where the lines of parley must remain open at all times. The Green movement be damned! But as far as Egypt is concerned, this is a historic moment for the Egyptian youth.


- The Graph: "The Socialist Roots Of The Egyptian Protests", by Brooks Bayne
- Africa Workers Organizer: "The Egyptian revolution has started" (Scribd doc) (via Uruknet)
- NoisyRoom: "Of Philanthropists and Monsters - Rockin' the Casbah", by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton (H/T Trevor Loudon"

Related dossiers

- "The Economy and Monetary file"
- "The Middle East Project"
- "The Levant Intricate Intrigues"

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Making the Muslim Brotherhood Look Respectable (updated)

Update Feb. 15, 2011

UPI: "Muslim Brotherhood steps into politics"

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt announced Tuesday that it began the processes necessary to become a formal political party. The Muslim Brotherhood was banned under the regime of Hosni Mubarak from competing openly as a political party. Its candidates won 20 percent of the seats in the Egyptian Parliament by running as independent candidates in 2005. Mubarak's ruling National Democracy Party last year, however, wiped the group off the political map in elections widely criticized by the international community.

Leaders of the group said that once it formed a legitimate committee, it would apply to become a formal political party in Egypt.  Ruling military authorities in Egypt dismantled much of the previous structure of the Mubarak regime, pledging to move forward with plans to hold national elections within six months. (...)"Although it fully understands that change does not happen overnight, the Muslim Brotherhood believes change will lead to a new beginning rooted in justice and progress," the group said (...) >>>

It was only a matter of time before the degenerated generation would collapse in the face of 'the inevitable'.
The way great societies commit suicide, is by banning the most flagrant inequities from their realm, and isolating themselves against the greatest misfortunes. All that security creates the false perception that evil does not exist. Amoralism ensues.

Relativist mental rot is setting in, leading to the suicidal conclusion of multiculturalism, that "all cultures are equally valid". It is only reasonable that all must share in the fruits of their forebears' endeavours - even those who at times seemed to have been the enemy.

The generation whose highest form of ethics was "make peace, not war" is asking the rhetorical question, can't we all just get along? Make compromises and negotiate until accommodation is reached? Evil loses its horns and the human face of the former enemy emerges; their fair grievances heard. The enemy of yesterday has become the peace partner of today, or so it seems.

Today that time has come. The leading Leftist newspaper in the United States is giving a member of the Muslim Brotherhood a platform for their ideas and proposals. And wadda you know? All they want is their fair share and 'democracy', 'reform' and 'progress':
(...) In more than eight decades of activism, the Muslim Brotherhood has consistently promoted an agenda of gradual reform. Our principles, clearly stated since the inception of the movement in 1928, affirm an unequivocal position against violence. For the past 30 years we have posed, peacefully, the greatest challenge to the ruling National Democratic Party of Hosni Mubarak, while advocating for the disenfranchised classes in resistance to an oppressive regime. (...) >>>
The Brothers are playing the postmodern West like a fiddle. They're buying their taqqiyah lock, stock and barrel. But behind the fog, the smoke and mirrors here's what they really, really want:
(...) There seems to be one little problem: the concept of democracy. (...) The unchallenged spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the 84 year old Egyptian sheikh who coordinates his international movement from Qatar. Al-Qaradawi is the worldwide political and religious ideologist of all organizations of Muslim Brethren. (...)
The thoughts of the Muslim Brotherhood were written down by Al-Qaradawi in 1990 in a study which appeared in English under the title "Priorities of The Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase". This work can be considered to be the political agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the past few decades this agenda has been executed in Egypt flawlessly. The Islamic Awakening is a long term process.
Al-Qaradawi aims at the revival of true Islam on all levels in society and at the establishment of an Islamic state. This program asks for proper and long lasting preparation by a vanguard of well-trained Muslims. By education, political activism, social programs, intellectual and scientific activities and foremost jihad (liberation of Muslim Territories) they are working systematically on the realization of a society which is completely governed by Islam. In this effort Al-Qaradawi promotes broad use of modern techniques of communication. In his view, all problems of society are caused by deviating from the path of Islam. At the same time he states that, instead of returning to the past, he wants to restore sharia in modern society. (...)
For power is what it’s all about in the political theater. For the Muslim Brotherhood it is ultimately about total political power, not about sharing responsibility and authority with other political movements. Islamic Awakening is comprehensive and only rests when society and the rule of law have been Islamized fully. Multiparty democracy is at most a transitional phase, which has to be endured out of tactical considerations. (...) At this point we encounter an essential element in Al-Qaradawi’s discourse.... >>>
One could almost be excused for accepting the Brotherhood's insidious propaganda. By all means, read Ben Avraham's great posting in its integrity! It's an eye-opener!

The shibboleths of the Left - 'democracy', 'reform', 'diversity' and 'progress' - trigger an instant sense of homecoming in the postmodern Left, who're just about ready for a merger with Islamic Socialism.

The world is watching the drama unfold.




Obama's 'smart' diplomacy is terrifying! This is the O-Team's intelligence community! The same Clapper who was uninformed about what was the great news on that day -

- Roger's Rules: "Ouch! More Smart Diplomacy", by Roger Kimball

- The Blaze: “Muslim Brotherhood’s Goals Uncovered: Global Islamic Conquest and Caliphate
- Palestinian Media Watch: "Translation of important Muslim Brotherhood book: Jihad is the way"
- Washington Post: "What Israel fears in Egypt", by Sallai Meridor

Related dossiers

- "The Jihad Project"
- "The Middle East Project"
- "Stop Islamization" (SIOE, SIOA)
- "Eurabia"
- "The Unholy Alliance"
- "The Flotilla Tactic"

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Egypt: the Revolution Has It Backward

For the latest also check our links on Politeia Articles: "The Middle East Project" >>>

That regime change and elections aren't the answer in the Muslim world, has been made plain in the Gaza Strip, where the population voted in an Islamofascist regime, thus effectively killing the state of democracy faster than you can say Hamas.
The problem is that  for democracy to take hold, much more is required than just a ballot box and a pot of purple ink. Freedom is an inherent, universal value, but it requires a civil society and above all, respect for individual rights to take root. A certain stage of social development is needed as well as a mindset that has separated itself from the tribal collective.

The post "A Paradox of Values" on Hoosier Access by Brian Sikma make this plain:
(...) While all parties seem to agree that Mubarak must go, there is very little indication that these popular protests have as their goal the establishment of a Western-style democratic state. The opposition groups have attempted to use the language of freedom to build international support for their cause, but a recent piece in the Washington Examiner takes a look at some polling done in Egypt on popular views regarding the role of religion in society.
In the Middle-East with its strong Islamic culture, democracy as traditionally understood by the Western mind is frequently tempered by strongly held local beliefs about the importance and centrality of religion and its role in society and government. While the West draws its understanding of freedom from Judeo-Christian values, those religions believe that ultimately every human being is responsible to God for his or her actions and beliefs. Aberrations from this point have produced significant amounts of chaos and tragedy. (...) >>>
The West - particularly the clueless crypto Left with their 'democracy' fetish - must let go of their naive revolutionary romanticism when it comes to the Middle East. This is the wrong sequence of events. Civil societies must be built, individuals must emancipate and free themselves from the constraints of the tribal collective that knows no distinction from matters sacred and secular.

I hesitate to state the separation of Mosque and State, because that is often interpreted as French Laicite, or the banning of all things religious from the public domain. But it's originally a negative freedom for the state not to meddle in what is considered the realm of the Church. But what is required here is a mental dichotomy of moral and secular matters, something that is hard enough in the free West with Leftists constantly writing their particular morality into secular law.

Alexis De Tocqueville has written a worthy tome on the concept of true Liberty in 1835 and how it took root in the United States.

Notwithstanding, Europe and in its wake the rest of the world, stubbornly keep following the French route, which is rooted in Rousseau's faulty concept of the collective State. It doesn't lead to Liberty, but to subordination to a collective of one terrifying form or other: ethnic nationalist, theocratic, Socialist or fascist.

This is what is in the making in the heart of secular Arabia, Egypt and in the dominos that are falling in the wake of Tunisia's Socialist Revolution. The call for democracy and freedom is soon turning into a hate fest against the perceived outside enemies, Israel and the US, ironically the very sources of true freedom and democracy!

In Iran the 1979 revolution was started by far Left Socialists and communists, only to be hijacked at a later stage by Islamists. They have beaten the Left at their own game of using stooges to do their dirty work!

Obama has already lost Egypt. He has been reaching out to Islamist organizations, which in Cold War terms is like parley with the KGB and thinking the Polit Bureau will stay out of it. This is rather insidious, given that the aim of the Muslim Brotherhood is the destruction of Western civilization from within.

Much hay has been made of the Pew Surveys (PDF) in the Islamic world as to their loyalty to Islamist causes and radical organizations. The appalling figures speak for themselves and support this shocking analysis that the hive minds aren't ready for any form of democracy in the Middle East. They remain faithfully loyal to the collective, thus spurning any form of individual responsibility. This is not the mature mindset required for a healthy liberal democracy.

Civil order, the rule of law and emancipation come first. Once that has taken hold, the ballot box follows naturally.


  • Abbas Milani is the director of Iranian Studies at Stanford University and a co-director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution. His new book The Shah was published a few weeks ago by Palgrave MacMillan. Michael J. Totten sat down with him in his office at the Hoover Institution to talk about what’s happening right now in Egypt -
PJM: "The Iranian Revolution Echoes in Egypt", by Michael J. Totten

The man who wrote those words – the witty and courageous Egyptian blogger “Sandmonkey” – is currently in hiding in his native city of Cairo, moving from one friend’s apartment to another, as supporters of Hosni Mubarak pursue him and other democracy demonstrators.
PJM: "Cairo Exclusive: Roger L. Simon’s Interview with ‘Sandmonkey’"


- Jerusalem Post: "Our World: Clueless in Washington", by Caroline Glick
- American Power Blog: "Analytical Realism: Political Stability in Egypt is Cardinal Israeli Interest"

Earlier on this subject

- "Revolution on Motion" (I)
- "Postmodern Foreign Policy is Dead, Bring Back the Neocons!" (II)
- "The Nature of the Revolution Is Socialist, Stupid!" (III)

Related dossiers

- "The Economy and Monetary file"
- "The Middle East Project"
- "The Levant Intricate Intrigues"

RatePoint Business Reviews