A Subliminal Conspiracy


‘Designed to influence the mind on levels other than conscious awareness and especially by presentation too brief to be consciously perceived’ is Webster’s definition of the word ‘subliminal’. In psychology, without any claim to knowing much about the field, there probably exists a method using subliminal tactics to influence the way people think.


Linking that fine word to a practical application comes to mind when observing the Arab Spring, an event covering a region of the globe many believed too immersed in regression to save.


The use of the word is metaphorically apparent when reflecting on the way the media of the West covers the post-uprising developments in several countries in the region. The point is that reporting on current events is conducted in a way subliminally aiming to cast doubt on the viability of realising the goals of the Arab Spring. Public opinion is manipulated into a mind-set designed to undermine the image of the uprisings and corral us back to a longing for the resumption of the previous regimes. Even if the possibility of bringing back the same tyrants is unrealistic, the least that is sought is to uphold the same ruling mentality while using new faces. That would go a long way in explaining, in the case of Egypt, the mysterious and powerful backing of the U.S. administration to the forces of Islamist tyranny and the outrageous indifference by Washington to the plight of thousands of peaceful activists still locked up in military prisons.


In Tunisia, much attention is directed to the rise of Islamism and to the ensuing unrest, subtly associated with the turbulence that resulted from what an observer might easily be induced to conclude was a totally unnecessary revolution, as depicted through the way it is being reported.


In Syria, in spite of a cascading series of horrifying regime-perpetrated crimes, claiming more than thirty thousand innocent civilian lives, a news item, describing the slaughter of pro-regime forces in summary executions carried out by the opposition, received headline coverage this morning and was brandished all over the main international news networks. The idea, plainly, is to subliminally corner public sentiment into an anti-Arab-Spring position.


Libya had its share of manipulation with the graphic televised images of the gruesome butchering of Mr Gaddafi. Reports of post-Gaddafi life appear to focus more on the chaos and incertitude brought on by the unavoidable resurgence of tribal trouble than on any positive developments.


Saudi Arabia’s pernicious incursion in Bahrain to quell the unrest is never mentioned in the news media, lest the Saudi royal family find it in poor taste. Its low-key support of the anti-Assad forces is another illustration of the methods used to convey the message, in this case clearly designed to bolster the anti-Shia movement. That leads to callously denigrating the entire sham of pretending to ease the suffering of Syrians being slaughtered like flies to a self-serving strategic advantage.


Egypt is inundated in distorted reporting of the actual developments, concentrating more on deceptively portraying a sordid image of an Islamist occupation and ridiculously irrelevant issues, such as the tussle going on over the wording of a new constitution. Meanwhile, nothing is done to call for the release of thousands of peaceful activists and the obvious intention of the way news is being reported is to convey a false image of the political goings on. Again, the public is subliminally being moulded into an anti-revolution frame of mind. Seldom do we hear or read a western-based news item extolling the real instigators of the revolution, or explaining how much simpler a transition to a better country can be achieved by calling for real and palpable change, not the rubbish extolling the pathetic excuse for president we are temporarily stuck with.


It is all quite deviously done in order to prevent the countries of the region from any chance of realising their democratic aspirations which have been clearly expressed in myriad uprisings and evident demands.


Seeking a reason to explain such a criminal attitude on the part of a U.S.-led western policy strategy in dealing with the Arab people requires discarding morality and decent conduct and concentrating entirely on short-term benefits. A malleable ruler, devoid of principles, is the prize most western governments yearn for, obviously not a sentiment that can be allowed to hit the headlines. Such rulers cannot be found within the ranks of the valiant revolutionaries whose loyalty and patriotism are beyond question. They can easily be found in the forces of decadent religious zealots whose general demeanour is at flagrant odds with everything they utter.


Before we begin to blame the brave men and women who rose to free their countries for not having persevered or organised themselves better or for having failed to produce a charismatic leader, let us gaze at a hypocritical West and try to figure out why the concept of a successful Arab Spring is anathema. Let us also attempt to assess the sabotage being performed on all the fine and pure aspirations of the region by a craven western attitude too demeaning in its perception of the people of the region to consider them human beings.


The West, if endowed with a modicum of morality, must begin to impress on its media that the right course of action is to follow your conscience before worrying over the health of your bank account, perhaps a dream only posterity will get a chance to fulfil.


The good news is that our revolutions do not need the West. We rose in spite of their minefields and we shall get there, whether they like it or not. The Arab Spring is alive and kicking.


2 November, 2012


Is the Turkish Model Suitable for Egypt?


In the confusion following the eruption of a revolution that failed to realise a single one of its declared objectives, endeavours to find a suitable political model for Egypt to emulate fill the media and the chat shows. Attempts to compare Egypt to examples of other nations that have managed to move ahead and to convert a clear popular demand to tangible changes fill our lives and preoccupy many analysts.


When discussing a religious model, which is the outcome that appears to have become our irreversible destiny, the rather limited spectrum available covers the mildest to the most extreme. In formulating a list of potential candidates on the comparison scale, the choice varies considerably, in accordance with the degree of the role of religion in influencing the political establishment. On the extreme end looms Saudi Arabia, with Indonesia and Turkey on the other. Forgetting the obstacles the Islamists in Egypt face in subduing a vibrant public and coaxing people into a way of life alien to their culture and to their heritage, if we take the religious scenario as a foregone conclusion, which of the religious models on the market would be most appropriate for Egypt?


First, let me emphasise that I am not a proponent of religious rule, nor do I believe that the Islamists in Egypt have succeeded in making an indelible scar on our lives. I believe they will be kicked out and will have to pay for the deception and the crimes they are currently committing. The point behind this exercise is to show that, even in its mildest and ostensibly most innocuous version, mixing politics with religion is futile and can never work.


On the more docile side of the scale of nations allowing Islam to be a defining factor in their political profile is Turkey, a nation that has always boasted its secular pedigree, even with the apparent take-over by an Islamist government and a clear careening towards a more conservative lifestyle and a nationwide resignation to the inevitability of more head scarves and more mosques. In spite of such ominous signs, a strong argument can be made to underline the progressive nature of Turkish life and its impressive economic performance, although it can also be argued that the desire to integrate with the rest of Europe has imposed strong deterrents on the religiously-inclined forces, protecting many aspects of secular life that would probably have succumbed to religiously-coated impositions in the absence of European pressure.


Turkey is an interesting case because its deep-rooted shortcomings are camouflaged quite adroitly by its ambivalence. It is a nation that is precariously poised between wishing to portray a certain image while simultaneously advocating the exact opposite.


Let me elaborate.


When Orhan Pamuk, the renowned Turkish Nobel laureate criticised the massacre of the Armenians almost a hundred years ago and the more recent mistreatment of the Turkish Kurdish population, he found himself on the receiving end of much trouble with the authorities. He was saved from serious legal harassment only after the European Union intervened and the Turkish government found itself jeopardising its chances of joining the union. The point is that the Turkish government would like to wear two hats: the oppressive and intolerant hat synonymous with Islamist hegemony and the progressive and transparent hat associated with being part of Europe.


As far as the viability of the Turkish political model is concerned, we must remember that it was Ataturk in the first half of the last century who stamped out the powerful influence of religious rule left over from centuries of Ottoman hegemony. He did that by replacing religious control with military rule and that is the model many people admire today. In the last fifty years or so, whenever a semblance of religious dominance appears on the political horizon, the generals step in with alacrity and dispose of the zealots, prompting observers to shower praise and admiration for the ability to keep the Islamists at arm’s length and to protect the people from their venomous ideology.


That is the version the Egyptian admirers of Turkey advocate when attempting to struggle out of the quagmire of political incertitude festooning life in Egypt these days.


It is a warped approach.


The comparison is flawed because Turkey is a country built on the rubble of foreign conquests that created an empire enabling her to acquire untold riches, whereas Egypt began its recent quest for a better country with very little economic strength. Turkey underwent change through the use of a whip that stifled dissent, always putting the interest of the ruler first; Egypt had a revolution to purge that very concept. The two cases are similar only in the area of how stifling dictatorship is bound to lead to religious extremism.


In the end, the forces of religious oppression still made an impact in Turkey, mainly as a result of military hegemony and intolerance. Today, despite its unequivocal economic leap forward, Turkey is dithering, with the looming prospect of a complete Islamist take-over and ominous scenarios to follow. Once the Islamists assume control, chances of upholding the economic gains will swiftly plunge.


It is wrong to rely on one oppressive approach to deal with another. Oppression will always breed more oppression and a rapidly closing window of possible ways out.


The Turkish model is not what is needed for Egypt. The concept of freedom from any form of oppression and the refusal to find short cuts are what Egypt needs.


We must be convinced that the cleansing operation we are going through in Egypt has to be comprehensive. If we accept partial solutions we are only regressing and shall keep going around in circles indefinitely.


We do not need a Turkish model or any other. Egypt is a proud country with a long history. We can and we must do it our way.


Our revolution must resume and our goals must be realised, the whole lot.


2 November, 2012

The Emancipation of Egypt

Ever since the religious perverts appeared to be gaining ground on the Egyptian political scene, public reaction has been a series of panic attacks, usually exhibited through leaving the country or spending more time complaining than thinking rationally. Most observers, who rather arrogantly place themselves in an intellectual stratosphere to which the masses have no access, will acknowledge that among us, the educated class, we will firmly repudiate the Islamists. However, they will tirelessly remind you that the overwhelming majority of the general public are not as privileged and are falling into the Islamist web unrelentingly.

Is such a picture accurate or does it reflect no more than the same supercilious attitude so naively adopted in the months and years leading to the 25th of January, 2011?

I have been vigilant of late in monitoring the signs indicative of an Islamist takeover to see if their political gains have been reflected in their general behaviour. Areas such as nightclubs and alcohol-serving bars, one would have expected, would be well on their way to extinction, were the threat as serious as many believe. They are not and, if anything, they seem to be more vibrant than they used to be. Beaches on the north coast and in the Red Sea region would have exhibited signs of an invasion of conservative beach attire; they have not and beach-goers are actually more defiant than ever in their determination to deny the Islamists any opportunity to spread their poison.

Even when a sick schoolteacher attempts to force her young female pupils to put on head scarves, public reaction is livid and the woman is humiliated nationwide.

Examples abound to emphasise the trend of diminishing returns the Islamists are facing with every fresh oppressive tactic.

Actually, my feeling is that the general public is bending over backwards to radiate nationwide revulsion to abiding by rules and customs being forced down our throats by a corrupt religious institution that has exhausted all credibility with a public that never asked for it to begin with. People are discovering the true nature of how the military used the religious pirates to subdue them. Gullibility is on its way out; awareness is making an impressive comeback.

What I believe we fail to see is the bigger picture of a nation going through the inevitable throes of discovering and purging the putrid phenomenon of religion invading the political arena. Under military dictatorship, much ground was won by a religious establishment dabbling in politics and gaining traction from nothing more than a lack-of-a-better-alternative scenario.

Nowadays, the influence of the autocratic system has diminished considerably and the public suddenly realises that criticising and refusing to be ordered around like sheep can be practised with far less risk than previously. The outcome is a healthy environment in which traditional official brutality in curbing dissent has been cut down significantly and in which fresh attempts at extending repressive tactics are met with escalating public hostility.

We are going through an earth-shattering transition and we must not fall into the trap of being unable to separate the wood from the trees.

Egypt is being emancipated, not turning into a new bastion of tyranny and corruption.

We must be patient, without giving up the fight.

1 November, 2012

Breaking the Sound Barrier


A well-known method of terrorising the enemy is by using jet fighters to break the sound barrier, while overflying highly populated areas. It is a gimmick exploited for decades by the Israeli air force against its Arab neighbours. Although rather ineffective in terms of military gains, it does have a strong demoralising influence and always generates plenty of fear and anxiety. It usually leaves general consternation in its wake.


In some cases, when the ruling junta has trouble identifying the enemy, the sound-barrier weapon is used within national borders against the same population that paid for the fighter jets. During the eighteen days it took to convince Mr Mubarak to pack, a couple of them attempted to scatter the Tahrir Square crowds, with the outcome producing the reverse effect; the crowds, contemptuous of the cowardly tactics being used by the regime, already in an irreversible revolutionary trance, only became more resolved. The fighter jets episode succeeded only in increasing the number of protesters, harbouring an additional dose of derision, to add to the fury directed at the murderous regime.


In the last few days the sound-barrier practise has resumed over several cities in Egypt. Various incidents of frightening bangs have been reported and one is left wondering how such decisions are made and to what end. Again, immersed in a cauldron of official opacity, speculation is the only channel available for an analyst trying to formulate a rational argument.


Has Mr Morsy assumed full control of the army and is he now in a position to send F-16s on an infantile mission of that nature? In that case, does Mr Morsy regard his people the way Mr Mubarak used to? Actually, apart from the jet fighters, everything else appears to confirm that he does.


The other possibility, the more likely one, is that the jets were ordered to fly by the military command, which is still well outside the sphere of influence of Mr Morsy. In that case, was the intimidation attempt directed at the people or at the Islamists beginning to get on the nerves of the ruling generals?


With the public still being treated like schoolchildren by a regime that fails to fathom the basic rules in dealing with a population far ahead in its awareness and vision over how it should be governed than anything its current rulers can appreciate, it appears that a collision course has been set. A labyrinth of confusion and obscurity looms over the entire country, with the Islamists and their military lords appearing the most confused of all. Every decision made, every action taken, every appointment announced only add to the mayhem and to a more complicated picture of the future.

How can such a situation end without the people rising in droves? Is it remotely plausible that the millions who rose before, resign themselves meekly and allow the tyrants to commit one blunder after another until the crimes can no longer be concealed?


What is unclear is what will happen once the country is cleansed of its current oppressors. Apprehension over recovering from the mess the rulers have dragged us into is not as difficult as many believe it will be. Once the religious baboons and their military barons do us the courtesy of departing, the ensuing atmosphere will encourage a quick recovery.


What is clear is that the people are not being fooled and will not be coerced into submissiveness. They are building up their cohesiveness and determination to realise their goals of freedom and dignity.


They will not be deterred.


30 October, 2012



A Deeper Grave

Takaddom Elkhateeb is a university professor, a profession generally considered highly respectable in Egyptian society. He is also a member of the committee, appointed by presidential decree, charged with the task of investigating the allegations surrounding the suppression of and the brutality applied with the revolutionaries. This truth-seeking committee is supposed to unravel the facts and expose some vicious culprits, widely seen as an unavoidable step demanded by a livid public, given the ferocity used to break the revolutionaries’ backs and suppress the freedom revolt. Its work, on paper at least, covers months of crimes resorted to by the authorities to quash all signs of an uprising that impressed the world, albeit temporarily derailed. The existence of such a committee is actually no more than a theatrical ruse, since any information discovered can only damage the authorities who formed it.

Actually, the committee, if genuine in its pursuit of results, could well end up being a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot nuisance. In the eyes of many, the mere establishing of such a committee is no more than another scam, in view of the obvious autocratic course the present Islamist government has clearly set, leading to a reincarnation of the ousted regime. In other words, the current authorities espouse a mentality identical to the previous regime’s and, therefore, would appear to be little inclined to open up a can of worms that could end up hurting them before others.

At any rate, Professor Elkhateeb is on that committee and is not known to be a regime lackey, although some would argue that working under such a regime, by definition, constitutes disloyalty to an unfinished revolution.

Our concern, however, is with another matter. On the first day of the Adha eid, the most important religious holiday in the Muslim world, he was on a public bus heading for Upper Egypt from Cairo to be reunited with his family. Before arriving at its destination, the bus was stopped and boarded by police personnel, officers and zombie-like recruits. In their traditional peremptory fashion, they began to inspect the papers of all the passengers in a manner eerily reminiscent of Hitler’s forces in occupied France, scenes we have all witnessed recreated in countless films.

Still trapped in the obsequious mentality of an era some believed gone for good, most of the passengers responded meekly and handed their papers over without protest or even an attempt to eyeball the aggressive young officer rudely snatching identity cards from his terrified victims’ hands. In the mindset of most Egyptian citizens, the cardinal rule still lingering is that those with the power to make your life miserable should not be challenged; no one will protect you from their wrath. When it was the professor’s turn to submit his papers, however, events took an unexpected twist. The professor, perhaps armed with the deceptively reassuring knowledge that his official position offered solid protection, was not ecstatic about the way his papers were being demanded. He protested, invoking the changes a revolution had introduced in terms of how people ought to be treated by the authorities and, as a result, was made to go through a horrible ordeal in which he was subjected to beatings and verbal abuse that those reporting found too obscene to repeat.

The interesting part of the story is that Professor Elkhateeb, not exactly a nonentity in the official circles of power, failed to make his clout produce a swift end to his ordeal and was only released after intense lobbying and high-level intervention. Under Mubarak, such obstreperous behaviour from police officers and their network of colluding superiors would have been unheard of. A personality of Elkhateeb’s standing would have been released immediately, once his proximity to high power circles was known. The fact that an obvious air of defiance prevails among the police force indicates that the Islamist government is merely a paper tiger. Such an incident revealed a shocking level of impotence in the institution of the presidency that many naively perceive as omnipotent as Mubarak’s.

That brings to the surface the issue of the behaviour of the police force and the necessity to confront the stark possibility that its members are as brutal as ever and who, carrying much revolutionary vindictiveness, are out on a manners-teaching mission to a public that thought a nationwide revolution had actually changed something.

Then there is the possibility that the behaviour of the security forces is condoned by Mr Morsy and his criminal companions, a plausible scenario in view of the confluence of interests of both sides, meeting at the revolution-ending target. Such a possibility presents those now in charge of running the country with a disturbing conundrum: how do we deal with rogue police officers who smear and undermine our image among the public, without risking widespread rebellion among their ranks, hence robbing us of one of our most effective repressive tools available? Are we more worried of the public, relentlessly criticising and ridiculing our performance in every field, or should maintaining the oppressive command structure through the continuing loyalty of our security dogs take precedence?

The reaction to the incident is what we must now focus on. Will the culprits responsible for such an effrontery be punished, or will they be merely mildly reprimanded in order not to rock the chain of command that is still heavily linked to protecting its thugs who have become the only hope for the survival of Mr Morsy and his lying murderers?

Before Mr Morsy’s theatrical accession to ‘power’, we all knew that eye-shooters and football-stadium killers would never be found, let alone prosecuted. Since he sat on the chair of power, it appears that the network of impunity has widened to include a police apparatus we never imagined would have the audacity to mistreat us again.

Nothing has changed; if anything things are worse and those with the guns and the whips are more brutal than ever.

Even so, do not despair; they are digging themselves into a far deeper grave.

28 October, 2012

A Test For The Court


Constitutions are documents drafted to establish how nations manage their affairs. Relations between citizens, their rights and responsibilities and the degree of protection afforded to each and every one of them by the state are universally agreed pillars of any constitution. Among the paramount guidelines of any constitution is the sublime concept of individual freedom, under threat only when infringing on the rights of others. In other words, if an individual expresses his or her opinion, no matter how offensive, without violating or hurting another individual, the law of the land must strive to shield that individual from any harm.


Millennia of political and philosophical human evolution have secreted clear and workable versions of constitutions that, in general, are found in what have become the advanced and prosperous nations of the world, as well as its most politically sophisticated, certainly not by accident or a pure coincidence. When the political will to turn a nation into a liveable place transcends petty excuses by minorities to turn it into a sinking ship there will never be a need to argue about the wording of a constitution or spend years bickering over who has the right to write its articles. There is a plethora of models from which a constitution with good intentions behind it can be transcribed verbatim.


The unending wrangling over our constitution offers conclusive evidence that our revolution has yet to prove its success and power to effect change. The failure to agree on hundreds of articles and the obvious intentions of exploiting the constitution to extend the autocratic complexion a revolution erupted to eradicate reveals a rotten conspiracy to keep Egypt at a safe distance from its rightful place among the world’s advanced nations. It is extremely disconcerting to witness acrimonious rows over issues that belong to another time and another place.


It was my understanding that the message behind our revolution soared high in the stratosphere of dignity, freedom and democracy. I never imagined at the time we all rushed down to the streets with gushing emotions and a passionate desire to live like human beings with dignity and hope that we would be pulled back to having to endure debates over women’s rights and shariaa.


Today, we are in the process of seeing history being written when our judicial system speaks on the legality of the make-shift constitution-forming authority, the body hastily and fiendishly put together by Islamists to choke us with a constitution reminiscent of a decree a foreign occupier would issue to subdue a people under occupation. It is that body that is at the centre of the controversy we are seeing in Egypt today. A court verdict to declare it illegal and, therefore, to nullify all its work, would be a solid step in the right direction, restoring some hope in the ability of the nation to achieve its goal. It would also be a stab in the attempts by a criminal religiously-tainted, militarily-backed movement to hijack a country. If the verdict goes the other way and endorses the legality of the constitution-forming authority, we will know that our legal system is being held hostage and that we must take matters in hand until we cleanse our country from all the filth it is still struggling to shrug off.


The court’s verdict is a litmus test that will shed much light on what is going on.


Either way, we shall win our country back.


23 October, 2012

Uncle Sam At The Core Of Egypt’s Problems

The Ameereya Press is the printing house for all official documents issued by the Egyptian government. It is there that all laws and other documents related to official business are printed. It is also the location in which voting cards used in elections and referendums are printed. Regardless of the nature of the issue of what is being voted over, the Ameereya Press is where the cards come from.

In the wake of the putative victory of Mr Morsy in the runoff for the presidential election, fraud accusations surrounding the authenticity of the election cards were received by the office of the public prosecutor, the man over whom so much controversy has recently been raised. The charges had to do with tampering with hundreds of thousands of cards in favour of the Islamist candidate, Mr Morsy, before the cards had even left the printing press. It is alleged that, on the card, the spot allocated for voting for Mr Morsy had been filled before the cards were dispatched to the voting stations, which meant that hundreds of thousands of fictitious votes had already been decided in advance.

Under normal circumstances, one would expect such sour-grapes accusations to fly from the losing side, not an unusual repercussion of a tightly contested election battle. So there is no reason to take the charges seriously until they carry more convincing investigative weight. What should have been done was to refute the charges resoundingly through an official statement backed by an official investigation, decorated with the indisputable persuasive argument of utter transparency in terms of how every step of the investigation was conducted. That would have emphatically laid to rest any lingering doubts over the possibility of the charges not being entirely baseless.

What happened, however, augmented the argument of the sceptics to a point of allowing them to be almost certain that the fraud allegations impugning the integrity of the election process were spot on. The public prosecutor suppressed the investigation and refused to take the matter any further. By so doing, he succeeded in casting grave doubt over the veracity of the election result and in raising myriad suspicions over how many other transgressions are awaiting exposure.

The motives for the public prosecutor’s position – and this is all speculation, the only available source of information, in view of the official opacity enshrouding this case – can perhaps be understood from the statements made by Azazy Aly Azazy, an ex-governor of the Delta province of Sharkeya, a Mubarak man, obviously not a paragon of credibility, by definition. He was the first to publicise the card-tampering allegation and present them to the public prosecutor. According to Mr Azazy, he consulted a high-ranking SCAF member to inquire about the lack of investigative action and was told that the Americans had issued instructions to bury the investigation.

Whether or not such an incident actually took place is, again, a matter of pure conjecture. Yet, in the radio-silence mode the government has switched on, it is only reasonable to take possibilities to the extreme and draw improbable conclusions. The onus is clearly on official circles to come clean and tell us what is really going on. That, however, is not their style. They have been immersed in a climate of secrecy for so long, they cannot begin to appreciate the importance or the consequences of being candid. In their blinkered reading of the situation, there might be some merit to applying more transparency, and the case in question could well be swept aside with solid evidence dismissing the allegations as being wildly and irresponsibly thrown in by a sore loser. The caveat, nonetheless, would be the opening up of a Pandora’s Box and the planting of a new ethos of openness that could herald mountains of problems and bring to the surface the stench of decades of tyranny. The ghost of the old regime lingers on in every aspect of our lives. Taking action in a fresh environment of transparency would be tantamount to scoring a goal against the run of play.

Sadly, we are still living in that era of clandestine thinking in which the initial inclination is always the prevention of any possibility of revealing how things are done. Since official decisions are still being made with the interest of the general public at the bottom of the list of official priorities, it is inconceivable for the existing government to operate in the open; it would invite a swift collapse of all official institutions.

Although the facts being discussed on this page are not new, they have never received a modicum of the attention they deserve by both domestic and international observers. The parochial short-cut of alluding to Mr Morsy as ‘fairly elected president’ is seriously undermined when revelations surrounding the cover-up stigmatising his ‘victory’ are exposed. Obviously, there are factions eager to keep a firm lid on Egypt through the imposition of a faithful bloodhound harbouring no compunction in attacking any victim on his master’s command.

Judging by the recent demeanour of Mr Morsy, the cardinal rule is to find supporters in this fading oasis which used to be oozing with backers and admirers. Deserted by former supporters, he is now in need of replenishing his support base with fresh members. His bizarre message to the Israeli president is the sign of a drowning man desperate to find a straw. The U.S. with its obvious endorsement of the MB movement is probably his strongest remaining pillar.

At the core of the complexity of the melee Egypt is undergoing lies, unfortunately, the sinister hand of Uncle Sam and the revolting notion that the U.S. administration is among the staunchest supporters of a despotic Egypt. Washington is moving smoothly from a pro-Mubarak position to a full-blooded backing of a despicable religious movement with implications on the future of Egypt far worse than the erstwhile junta could have injected. Rumours of huge amounts of pro-Morsy campaign American funding, yet to be refuted or denied, are flying high. Tracing Mr Obama’s and

Mrs Clinton’s inexplicable and steadfast adherence to a fictitious situation in which the Islamists are supposed to have acceded to power fair and square, one cannot escape the glaring conclusion that the U.S. administration has become among the most repugnant advocates of despotic rule in Egypt and cannot bear to live with the notion of a free and clean Egypt.

It would be disheartening if the analysis being attempted on this page be construed as a support for the resumption of military rule, for that is not at all the intention. If we are serious about fair elections, the entire process, together with its fraudulent result, must be annulled. The first round of the election was also manipulated in order to coerce the voters into a spite-vote situation the result of which would have served the military anyway, whichever candidate ended up the winner.

It would be uplifting if an official statement were to be issued from Washington denying having tampered with the election results and confirming that Washington’s ultimate aim is to see a democratic and free Egypt. I challenge Mr Obama to do that.

We must liberate our country from the wicked influence of Uncle Sam before we can really be free. We are still puppets in a masquerade most of us cannot understand and the strings are still being pulled from a distance.

22 October, 2012