Monday, February 21, 2011

Why the Egyptian Revolution is No Cause for Celebration

"The only thing that is new in the world is the history you do not know."
~ President Harry Truman

Over the past several weeks, the mainstream media has indoctrinated us with lofty visions of the Egyptian people overthrowing their "evil dictator" and putting their country on the path to democracy. True, Hosni Mubarak has stepped down and his twenty-nine year reign has ended for good. Now, it is up to the Egyptian people to write their own constitution and make their own future. This, however, is no cause for celebration - for no matter how much the media talks about the "peaceful protesters" and "democracy," the facts tell a different story.

My opinion on the recent uprisings can be summed up in two points:

(A) By no stretch of the imagination can the Egyptian people be described as the Jeffersonian Democrats of the 21st century.

(B) Democracy is difficult to maintain and, in some cases, a dangerous thing to attain.

A democracy "of the people, for the people, and by the people" will inevitably reflect the views of the people.  So, the question should be asked: What are the views of the Egyptian people?
Let's take a look at the results of Zogby polls.

Here are some shocking details:

  • 84% believe apostates from Islam should face the death penalty.
  • Let me say that again: 84 percent of the Egyptian people believe that those who convert from Islam to another religion should be eliminated from the face of the earth - killed, wiped out, slain, murdered in cold blood. 84 percent of the Egyptian people believe that converts have no right to exist. 84 percent - that is, millions upon millions - of Egyptians support the murder of innocent people simply because they chose to change their religion.

  • 54% hold that adulterers should be stoned.

  • Fifty-four percent of the Egyptian people believe that it is acceptable to bury people alive with stones simply because they were unfaithful to their spouses. Granted, I think that adultery is a horrible thing - but to murder over it?

    I wonder what these "Jeffersonian Democrats" and "peaceful protesters" think about Bill Clinton, and Eliot Spitzer, and the thousands of other Americans who cheat or have cheated.

    Here in the United States, we have debates about whether or not it is justifiable to kill a convicted murderer. We have countless opponents of the death penalty who believe that all human life is sacred and that killing even the vilest of people is wrong. In Egypt, however, 54% of the people believe it is acceptable to kill simply because of infidelity, while 84% of the people believe it is acceptable to kill simply because someone decided to change his religion.

    Supporters of gay marriage and abortion acknowledge that both can be seen as wrong for moral or religious reasons, but say that one should not impose his moral or religious beliefs on others through force. I tend to agree with that argument, and have no intention of imposing anything on anybody.

    Millions upon millions of Egyptians, however, think that killing adulterers and apostates is acceptable. How many of the "wonderful," "peaceful," "pro-democracy" protesters we saw earlier this month espouse these murderous views?

    Let's be frank: If a television anchor even hinted that adulterers or apostates should be killed, that anchor would be fired the next instant. But, when millions upon millions of people admit to espousing the same views, we support and praise them and their efforts at "democracy." Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Where are all those people who are supposed to be calling for civility? Why aren't these proponents of "civility" and "fairness" outraged? Why is no one explaining to the Egyptian people that, no, it's really not a good idea to pelt women with stones and bury them under the ground while they're still alive simply because they committed adultery?

    The silence speaks for itself.

    But let us continue our exploration of the views of those "moderates" and "democrats" in Cairo.

    In the current conflict among Palestinians, with whom do you sympathize most, Fatah or Hamas? Both to some extent 70%.

    Well, Fatah was founded by Yasser Arafat - and I won't waste time discussing what it does. HAMAS, on the other hand, is a terrorist organization, identified as such by the United States, Canada, Israel, and Japan.

    Seventy-percent of the Egyptian people sympathize, to some extent, with a designated terrorist organization that seeks the destruction of the State of Israel. To some extent, 70% of the Egyptian people support a murderous, anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying organization. To some extent, you see.

    - Here is another poll indicating that 92% of Egyptians consider the United States their greatest threat, while 86% say Iran has a right to pursue its nuclear program. The international community is gravely concerned about what a nuclear bomb can do in Iranian hands. The Holocaust denier, 9/11 truther, and absolute fascist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made no secret of his desire to wipe the "Zionist regime" (Israel) off the map. Only a complete moron would believe that Iran's nuclear program is innocuous or harmless. Thus, when the Egyptian people say that they support the nuclear program, they - in effect - support what the Iranian fascists intend to do with it.

    Now, let me be clear: I have no intention of stereotyping, or even demonizing, the Egyptian people. They're entitled to their own opinions, their own values, and their own beliefs.  What they're not entitled to do, however, is to impose those beliefs on others. They're not allowed to tell others how to live their lives. When the majority of a people call for the death of apostates or adulterers, that is not "democracy" or "freedom"; it is tyranny and barbarity.

    History shows that not all nations are equipped for democracy. Here is a brief overview of four "democracies" that didn't turn out so well.

    In 2006, President George W. Bush insisted on "democratic elections" in Gaza. In these "democratic elections," approximately 440,000 Palestinians voted for HAMAS, which now controls the Gaza Strip.

    In 1989, the Iranians overthrew the Shah and established a "democracy" -  a democracy of ayatollahs, Holocaust deniers, and cold-blooded fascists. In 2007, Iran had two gay teenagers executed for the crime of ... being gay. (Here in the United States, we're talking about the "right" to gay marriage. In Iran and other Islamic theocracies, they hang gays - including children.) The Iranian regime has executed at least 67 people so far this year, and well over a hundred in 2010. Most of these are, of course, simply political opponents that the regime wishes to get rid of - but that, my friends, is the "democracy" we got in Iran, where the Ahma-dictator was elected in 2005 and "re-elected" (or maybe not) in 2009.

    Russia also had its experiment with democracy under Alexander Kerensky, but then followed 70 years of a Communist dictatorship that killed some 20 million people. Afterwards, Russia had a series of "democratic reforms," but is now run by former KGB agent Vladimir Putin, who is doing everything in his power - and beyond - to return Russia to the days of the Moscow Show Trials. So much for democracy there.

    Finally, there was the Weimar Republic, the weak "democracy" in Germany that served as a bridge to Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. Oh, and need I remind anyone that Hitler's National Socialist Party came to power through democratic elections as well?

    But, you will say, the United States is a democracy. If we can do it, why can't the Egyptians? But remember that for over a hundred years, neither African-Americans nor women had the right to vote. Some Americans alive today still remember how Blacks were humiliated, sent to the back of the bus, etc. Democracies take years and years to develop, and sometimes - as in the case of Alexander Kerensky, the Weimar Republic, and Iran - democracies fail and lead to totalitarian and murderous dictatorships.

    When asked what kind of government the United States would have, Benjamin Franklin replied: "A republic, Madam, if you can keep it." Russia, Germany, and Iran failed to "keep" the democracies they established. Our own democracy took centuries to mature, but the Egyptians think that they will have democracy this very year. Their country has no democratic tradition or precedent; but somehow, they say, a leader will emerge. Alas, that leader may well be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and countless people may be murdered in the years to come - just like they were in Stalin's gulags, in Hitler's gas chambers, and on Ahmadinejad's gallows. As Harry Truman said, "the only thing that is new in the world is the history you do not know."

    We saw a preview of the Egyptian "democracy" when CBS journalist Lara Logan was raped by a mob of some 200 men. Of course, there are several things the mainstream media didn't tell you about the "peaceful," "pro-democracy" protests. The first is that Egyptian criminals broke out of jails to join the riots. Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing remotely "peaceful" about breaking into museums or destroying 5000-year-old artifacts. The protests were about more than democracy; they were about criminals doing as they pleased - looting, rioting, stealing, destroying, and raping. Numerous journalists were attacked and some were threatened with decapitation (wait, beheading Americans will lead to democracy?). Lara Logan was raped by a mob of 200 men who shouted, "Yehud! Yehud!" - that is, she was accused of being a Jew. Apparently, a good number of Egyptians think it is acceptable to rape a reporter who's on their side simply because they believe that she's a Jew.

    At the end of the day, however, the Egyptians in Tahrir Square didn't just rape an American journalist; they raped America itself. And the media pulled the wool over our eyes with its idiotic praise of the "pro-democracy" protesters. Alas, too many of us fell for it because, as Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." He was right, and the media was wrong.

    I am warning you here and now that democracy is not for everyone - that it's for civilized people, not for savages. Of course, not all Egyptians are savages: there are many good ones, and I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for the future victims of the Muslim Brotherhood. I feel sorry for them because I know history, and history repeats itself. The "democracy" in Gaza led to a HAMAS  takeover, the Kerensky regime paved the way for a Communist dictatorship, the Weimar Republic served as a bridge to the Third Reich, and the Iranian "democracy" gave way to ayatollahs and Ahma-dictators.

    As said above, a democracy "of the people, for the people, and by the people" will inevitably reflect the views of the people. I established quite clearly what those views are. It is true that those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them. So study your history, kiddies, study your history. It shows that the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.

    ***UPDATE: Kudos to Dennis Prager, who backs me up with his piece in the National Review.


    1. Interesting article Mike, you know I have always enjoyed your answers and your insights on things and this is no less then what I expected. It is interesting that the media, mainstream at least, covers up many things about the "democratic Reforms" of Middle East nations. However , as you said, people are entitled to their opinion. Just think about it.
      Now im not defending the rape of Lara Logan or other barbaric actions done by protesters, which as you said do consist of escaped criminals, but what you have to understand or know if you haven't already, is that even in a Democracy the majority rules. That was the case in America as well. Did not Whites, both Southern and Northern, believe that they were superior to Blacks? Did not Americans push for anti-immigrant laws? So what I'm trying to say is that maybe after a while these barbaric ideals will simmer down. I mean, if you remember the Salem Witch Trial, women and wen were hunted under a superstitious belief that they were witches probably because they were smarter or better looking. Eventually this barbarity was done away with when they realized that is was a stupid and unwarrented practice. And as you said, America has matured as a Democracy, it did not start out like it is now. So maybe in a few years when people in these nations realize that they are just acting like their predecesors they will try to change. I can't say if that time is next year or even, like America, 300yrs later, but i think that such atrocities will cease sooner or later when the majority realizes its mistake. And as a reminder I am not defending the actions of barbarianism by the people, I am mearly saying that many revolutions in government take time to stabalize and take actual form.

    2. W: Yes, I pointed out the problems of American democracy and how it failed to protect the civil rights of women and Black Americans.

      However, revolutions could take a even worse turn and give us the Reign of Terror (in France), the Soviet Union, the Third Reich, or the Castro regime, or what you see in Iran today.

      You write that in a democracy, the majority rules. That is true, and that is the problem I have with Egyptian democracy. You saw the kinds of views that the majority of Egyptians hold, and they are wholly incompatible with democracy.

      Also, don't forget that America had certain pre-revolutionary democratic traditions, like the Mayflower Compact, the Cambridge Agreement, town hall meetings, etc. In Egypt, they have nothing - but an affinity for sharia law. The Egyptian people and the mainstream media think there's going to be democracy this year, but I am telling you that it ain't happening.

      "[M]any revolutions in government take time to stabalize and take actual form." Well, the Muslim Brotherhood may kill a few million people - just like Stalin, Hitler, etc. - but democracy will "eventually develop."

      Undestand that democracy does not develop out of thin air, and it can be a very dangerous thing when put in the hands of the wrong people. I am no lover of Hosni Mubarak, but I respect him.

      Read Dennis Prager's article - Mubarak may have run a dictatorship, but things could always be worse.

    3. Fantastic in every way. You've set the bar pretty high, Mike. Certainly opinionated, and definitely controversial. Referring to Egyptians as savages is one way to get a rise out of people, if they've managed to make it that far.

      Grade: 4

      Excellent comment, Waleed. I like the dialogue that is beginning here.