Friday, January 28, 2011

Conservative religious groups that help masses of poor will reign if tyrant Mubarak falls

From:
Muslim Brotherhood as the only force capable of replacing Mubarak

(Canada Free Press) -- by Daniel Greenfield --

After Tunisia, the disturbances have moved on to Egypt, Yemen and Jordan. Despite what is being predicted, I wouldn’t count on any of these countries undergoing the same kind of turnover.

Mubarak is a canny old goat and his secret police forces are extensive and effective. And given a choice between complying with Obama’s demands and giving in, on cracking down, he will crack down. All that is being accomplished by the calls for Mubarak to democratize and resign is to show how irrelevant America is and how worthless it is as an ally.

Probably the dumbest piece so far comes from Jackson Diehl at the Washington Post
the Obama administration’s embrace of Mubarak, even as the octogenarian strongman refused to allow the emergence of a moderate, middle-class-based, pro-democracy opposition, has helped bring the United States’ most important Arab ally to the brink of revolution. Mass popular demonstrations have rocked the country since Tuesday; Friday, when millions of Egyptians will assemble in mosques, could be fateful.
Key word here, mosques. Read Muslim Brotherhood. Mubarak will not be replaced by Diehl’s imaginary moderate middle class democracy opposition. It will be a tyranny of one kind or another. And the odds are still on the Muslim Brotherhood as the only force capable of replacing Mubarak.
Second, the Obama administration’s Middle East experts concluded that there was no chance of serious reform - much less revolution - under Mubarak. So they plotted at playing a “long game” of slowly nurturing grass-roots movements and promoting civil society, in preparation for the day when Egypt might be ready for real reform. In this they badly underestimated the secular opposition that was rapidly growing in the blogosphere and that months ago began rallying behind former U.N. nuclear director Mohamed ElBaradei.
This is so much crap that it could be shoveled to make strawberries. Only a Beltway journalist would take the Egyptian blogsphere seriously as an opposition force. The Egyptian blogsphere consists of mostly middle and upper class privileged Egyptian kiddies. They will be absolutely irrelevant once the shooting starts and they have no role whatsoever in determining who takes over the country.

Mohamed El Baradei’s “popularity” is an even bigger myth. El Baradei is mostly popular with Western journalists. No one in Egypt gives two shakes of a donkey’s tail about him.
Those demands are coherent and eminently reasonable: Mubarak should step down and be replaced by a transitional government, headed by ElBaradei and including representatives of all pro-democracy forces.
How is this reasonable? ElBaradei hasn’t won an actual election. Why should it be assumed that he should take power? Because he’s a favorite of the WaPo columnists? Get real.
That government could then spend six months to a year rewriting the constitution, allowing political parties to freely organize and preparing for genuinely democratic elections. Given time to establish themselves, secular forces backed by Egypt’s growing middle class are likely to rise to the top in those elections - not the Islamists that Mubarak portrays as the only alternative.
And then happy bunnies will fly out of their ears and sing magical songs about something or other.

Really? Open elections. That are going to be won by the secular middle-class? What secular middle-class? Most of Egypt is poor. The vast majority of it is religious and fanatical. If this had happened in the 1950’s, it still probably wouldn’t have worked, but there might have been a shot. But now. A secular middle-class government in Egypt?

I don’t have the proper words to express how insane and delusional this is. The only secular governments in the Muslim world are run by dictators. And that is how it is going to stay.

A democratic election will be won by the Muslim Brotherhood. No ifs ands or buts. They may temporarily enlist secular allies, but they will ultimately rule alone. They are happy to use ElBaradei as a front, but the end result will be an Islamist regime...MORE...LINK
------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Greenfield writes:

A secular middle-class government in Egypt? I don’t have the proper words to express how insane and delusional this is. The only secular governments in the Muslim world are run by dictators. And that is how it is going to stay. A democratic election will be won by the Muslim Brotherhood.

These neocons and statist-liberal cretins are unbelievable. They back every "secular" tyrant between America and Iran to the hilt with billions in U.S. taxpayer funds, finance the oppression and impoverishment of the Arab masses for decades on end, launch wars of aggression for Israel and to oust formerly U.S.-backed secular tyrant sock puppets like Saddam Hussein who get out of hand, and then they profess indignation that Islamists -- apparently some of the only Arabs with balls enough to take on these corrupt, murderous, dictatorial statist-authoritarian regimes and make some kind of effort to alleviate the suffering of the masses of poor -- become heir to any kind of democratic efforts.

I've got to hand it to Greenfield though: at least he's honest enough to admit that so called "secularism" is a liberal code word for statist-authoritarianism designed to oppress and genocide religious folk.

I have no love for Islamists, nor do I think totalitarian religiosity is any kind of moral answer. On the other hand, these "secular" statist-liberal-capitalist murderers, degenerates, and Zionist "elites" that have taken control of so much of the West aren't much better than Islamists, and in the long run might even be worse. And, as Greenfield admits, they're willing to engage in devil's bargains with murderous dictators who kill their own people by the tens of thousands all to play "the great game" which at root is a means to maintain the post-Christian, increasingly sick, morally hollow, hyper-materialistic, cushy liberal-capitalist lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

It all reminds me of how liberals in the 20's told Americans that the Bolshevik revolution had "liberated" Russian Christian peasantry even as it was murdering them by the millions, and reminds me how FDR allied with "secular" dictator Joseph Stalin in World War II -- a man that already had the blood of millions of Soviet-murdered Christians on his hands -- and declared him to be lovable old "Uncle Joe."

Liberal hypocrisy and moral rot is unbelievable. That level of cynicism is truly a sickness.

1 comment:

Dissident said...

Well said Chris. The hypocrisy of these people never ceases to amaze, does it? These people are the epitome of evil, and as you put it so eloquently, the level of moral rot is unbelievable. Truly astounding.