The Blood of Patriots and Tyrants by Kaiser Leib

UPDATE: Mubarak has stepped down.

Bill wrote a previous piece on Egypt’s present condition, and what it might indicate for our future on the American continent

Mubarak, announcing his refusal to step down

Earlier today the US-supported Egyptian head of state, President Hosni Mubarak, announced his refusal to resign from that office. His refusal came as a surprise to many, given the overwhelming domestic opposition to his rule. The riots in Egypt continue, and the Egyptian military seems loath to quell the insurrection.

Mubarak’s fortune is secure; he could abdicate to Tel Aviv, leave the rule of the country to another puppet leader, and live the rest of his life in luxury. Instead he insists that he will continue to hold his post until Egypt’s September elections. He won the 2005 election with 88 percent of the vote. Perhaps popular opinion has swung against him during his term, or perhaps these elections do not represent the will of the people. In any case, Mubarak does not presently hold the people’s favor.

Governments cannot govern without the consent of the populace. A government without mandate is a misnamed occupying force, forever at war with the citizens it ostensibly serves. What could Mubarak’s goals for remaining in power possibly be? Why has the US government continued to support his rule for so long?

Mubarak must and will be deposed by his own people. If he abdicates peacefully, more of those people will live. Does he care? What are the differences between Mubarak’s government and ours?

And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

-Thomas Jefferson

kaiserleib
kaiserleib@gmail.com
4 Comments
  • Rey
    Posted at 19:32h, 10 February Reply

    Kaiser,

    In response to a couple of your questions: I think Mubarak is counting on the Muslim Brotherhood making a power play which will allow him to do no wrong in our eyes and also in the eyes of some of the elements involved in the current demonstrations.

    Also I think there are numerous differences between our governments but the better question is, are these differences meaningful or merely cosmetic.

  • Bill
    Posted at 09:18h, 11 February Reply

    His rule is also supported because he is a willing Arab Satrap of the Israeli state and its satellites in official Washington.

  • Kaiser Leib
    Posted at 10:51h, 11 February Reply

    Rey,
    This morning’s events rather invalidate most of my confusion. I’m pleased by them, and will write more after work. I agree with the appearance of many differences.

    Jesse,
    I suppose I’d hope we’re immune to thinking in terms of sunk cost fallacies, but that would really be asking too much.

  • roy fox
    Posted at 15:30h, 22 February Reply

    Since my first excursion down the rabbit hole of alternative news and revisionist history over a decade ago, I’m more or less convinced that most of the violent events we see are staged or instigated by the money power. Average people do not make the decision to begin revolts, but groups with powerful financial backing do. The peasants may join “the crowd” but the direction is pre-determined. As always, there the standard questions of “Who benefits?” and “What part does the CIA/MI6/Mossad have in the event?” My initial inclinations are that these revolts happening all across the mideast are being orchestrated as part of the global chess game being played out. Mubarak is simply a pawn to be disposed of, as are all heads of state. The money powers are never truly threatened. But I’d be more than happy to be wrong on that point!

Post A Comment