After 29 years of a Mubarek dictatorship cats in Egypt suddenly decide they want to launch a Revolution. Cool. Change is good. But timing is everything. Why now? Why on the heels of Tunisia? Is this that natural domino effect of Spreading Democracy in the middle east that Bush and the NeoCons promised us? Or is this some dark, shadow government, NWO shit? 
Is the same cast of characters, the same NGO's, the same think-tanks, and the same private intelligence services behind the previous contrived color revolutions behind this one too? Remember those made-for-TV and YouTube revolutions that were splashed all over Plantation Media a few years ago? How is this one different?
Remember "Save Darfur"? Nothing more than an attempt to hi-jack an oil and mineral rich African nation via a celebrity studded PR Campaign. The Liberal half of the Hegelian Head Fake doing it's share of empire building.
Funny thing is the Egyptians are protesting for "Freedoms" Americans don't even have. The right to choose between one of two puppet Presidential candidates, controlled by the same bankers, every four years aint much different from having the same old geezer as President for 29 straight years.
11 comments:
Sprinkle a little Julian Assange and Wikileaks on this story, with the claim that this fabricated Robin Hood fomented "revolution" through the release of "diplomatic cables" about Egypt's corruption, and the fishy stench of orchestrated crisis cannot be missed.
And Mohamed ElBaradei (another Bankster lackey) arrives in Cairo just in time to be interviewed and promise "change". Quite reminiscent of Khomeini's well-timed arrival into Tehran from his posh apartment in Paris just in time to take control of the Iranian revolution.
As Lenin said, the best way to control the opposition is to lead it.
OK, you think this is orchestrated. Fine. Could be, who knows.
What would a spontaneous, grassroots revolution look like in Egypt? I ask you because, you probably have more insight into Egypt since (I believe you said) you were are from there, and presumably still have friends/family there.
Far behind?
Dv-
4:00 -4:15 Bra.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kof0h_ojD6w
What would a spontaneous, grassroots revolution look like in Egypt?
Hmmm....that's a great question Doc, but tough to answer because the term "grassroots" has no meaning anymore.
If it were real, authentic revolution, the new leaders would tell the IMF and the World Bank to go F themselves on their ill-gotten loans. If it were real, the new leaders would kick out all the multinationals and NGO's who make it their job to divide and conquer and stir the pot.
If it were truly grassroots, the army would be on the same side with the protesters - although I did read something this morning that said soldiers were taking off their uniforms and joining the fight.
People are highly religious there so I would venture a guess that anything truly "grassroots" would be Islamic in nature.
Doc,
Your question made me think of a post I wrote over five years ago.
http://intellectualinsurgent.blogspot.com/2005/05/arab-spring.html
When I use "grassroots" I mean it in the classical sense of the word.
OK, I think I get your meaning. Although I don't think you can say the Army would be on the side of the protesters without qualifying what you mean as "Army". The way I mean this is that maybe a majority of soldiers (enlisted types, lower level officers etc) could be on the side of the people, but those who are in command of the "Army" materiel and personnel would likely still be under the influence of the current regime. I see these almost as two separate entities. I think I get what you mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
As far as the IMF and World Bank etc...I can't comment because I haven't looked into it.
The timing is also very fishy given that not more than a day before shit popped off in Tunisia, Hilary Clinton warned the Arab governments that they need to clean up corruption (i.e. stop exploiting your people without kicking proper tribute to the U.S.) and speed up the pace of "economic reform" (i.e. play ball with IMF and World Bank) or risk "sinking into the sand." I may just be an old, cranky conspiracy theorist, but the timing of those remarks with what has now taken place in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt...well, I've got no proof, but I'm no coincidence theorist. Yes, the governments of the Muslim countries may be corrupt and despotic, but the dictates of Islam forbid certain kinds of economic exploitation that is the backbone of the globalist economic infrastructure. Plus, the fallen caliphates of the past notwithstanding, Islam has evolved to be be a very decentralized, yet potentially highly united movement. There is no pope of Islam. And since Muhammed was declared the seal of the prophets, there's a built-in mechanism that would see anyone trying to pretend to be the Supreme Leader of Islam beat down and declared a heretic. This decentralized quality of Islam is antithetical to centralized, global totalitarian ambitions of the economic elite, this despite the local despots currently running most Muslim countries. I think when the smoke clears from these seemingly spontaneous revolutions in the Muslim world, we'll be able to tell a little better what is likely to have really been going on. But, if you see these countries new leaders taking out big IMF loans...well, we'll have a pretty good idea what's up.
Cadeveo,
"Yes, the governments of the Muslim countries (I'm going to assume you meant some rather than all Muslim countries) may be corrupt and despotic, but the dictates of Islam forbid certain kinds of economic exploitation that is the backbone of the globalist economic infrastructure."
You assume the leaders of those countries adhere to the dictates of Islam. You assume the words of the Koran speak louder than dollar bills (or whatever form of currency they use). These countries leaders are probably more secular than religious (which I personally see as a good thing).
Of the four countries currently in the news protesting 3 have had ONE MAN ruling since for more than quarter century:
Tunisia: Ben Ali in power for 24 years, usually has been elected to office by overwhelming majorities.
Egypt: Hosni Mubarak in power for 30 years, elected by referendum, rather than election. Were these elections open and legitimate? Some believe not. I don't know.
Yemen: Ali Abdullah Saleh President for almost 21 years (ruled YAR for 12 years prior).
Lebanon: Hezbollah forming a new government.
The people in the streets have legitimate concerns.
II,
So what happens when Yemen tells IMF and the World Bank to go fuck themselves? Where will needed investment come from? It's not like their oil revenues are going to last forever, and actually I think they are declining.
Tunisia with 30% unemployment in some places (which lends quite a bit of credence to a legitimate uprising), depending on tourism. How (and why) would they tell IMF to keep their cash?
You assume the leaders of those countries adhere to the dictates of Islam.-DMG
Cadeveo didn't say the leaders adhere to the dictates of Islam. Just like Bush nor Obama adhere to the dictates of Christianity. Historically even when Islamic Empires were ruled by the sharia it was looked down upon for scholars and pious people to keep company with leaders. Potential corruption in government leadership is a universal concept. So, I don't think he's making that assumption.
Yes, the governments of the Muslim countries may be corrupt and despotic, but the dictates of Islam forbid certain kinds of economic exploitation that is the backbone of the globalist economic infrastructure.-Cadeveo
Are you referring to the rejection of usury? "Usury Deniers" are potential threats to IMF'ers.
"You assume the words of the Koran speak louder than dollar bills..."-DMG
For some people yes, not for all. DMG, how can you submit this concept here, but fail to grasp this concept there i.e. assuming a healthy nation speaks louder than pharma dollar bills?
What did Wu say, "CREAM"
Of the four countries currently in the news protesting 3 have had ONE MAN ruling since for more than quarter century-DMG
We have a choice of two options. What's so big about that? Was your wife the choice of only two women in your life? Plus our choices are having tea and crumpets behind stage curtains.
So what happens when Yemen tells IMF and the World Bank to go fuck themselves? Where will needed investment come from?
Who says they need investment? And, if they do, the investments will come from investors.
How (and why) would they tell IMF to keep their cash?
What cash? The IMF and World Bank don't give cash; they give debt. They go to Misc. Random Despot and say, look here son, Parsons or Bechtel is going to build a dam on River X or a subway system through X city. We will make you a "loan" for some insane amount to pay for it, send the checks to Parsons and, when you fail to pay interest on the loan - because we all know you can't afford it - we will impose "austerity" and "restructuring" on your country.
Austerity and restructuring mean no more subsidies for anything, which allows foreign goods to come in cheaper (see Mexico as an example - cheaper to buy subsidized U.S. corn than to buy it from Pedro at the corner), cuts to all services for anyone and, generally, complete impoverishment of the nation.
That's how Banksters do it DMG. Countries like Egypt and Tunisia are not the way they are just because.
Fraud Plagues Global Health Fund Backed By Bono, Others
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41221202/ns/health-health_care/
Sad to say - the best way to attract money and/or the UN Forces is to put up a "Black poster child" for destitution and poverty and watch as the donors respond.
Post a Comment