Preemie Revolutions: The new paradigm in the subversion of democracy.

The Egyptian referendum has now taken place. They have voted to end the constitutional possibility of any more "dictators for life" emerging in Egyptian politics. They are paving the way for the creation of political parties and a democracy similar in style to the ones we see in the west. That's good as far as it goes.

Who'd have thought a group of people running around in the streets could get so much done in such a short time?

Of course, most of the idealistic Egyptians who took to the streets, are not aware that their revolution was carefully incubated by outside forces. This is documented by the ladies of Cairo and their website, harassmap.org, which statistically tracked sexual harassment in the streets of Cairo since 2004 and noted a sharp and ever increasing acceleration of sexual harassment in Cairo beginning in November 2010, three and a half months prior to the ouster of Mubarak.

By mid-February of 2011, the harassment level was eighty times the norm recorded from 2004 to November 2010. This could not happen by accident.

I believe that the surge in harassment of the ladies of Cairo was staged by one or more foreign intelligence services to anger the Egyptian population in Cairo in a way that would have flown under the radar and have gone unnoticed if not for the ladies who run harassmap.org. Undoubtedly there were other strategies for exacerbating social tensions in Egypt and undoubtely these were formulated and carried out by operatives working for foreign intelligence agencies.

Who were these people?

In due time we will know exactly who they were, because they will emerge in control of Egypt when the dust settles after the first "election".

So much for "power to the people". Already there are complaints from segments of the Egyptian street protesters that they are being shunted aside as the new democratic paradigm takes shape.

I have a question about the Egyptian referendum. Did it spell out in detail the restrictions on lobbyists and the restrictions on campaign contributions by corporate donors? Surely, this being the middle east, lobbyists and corporate interests who try to purchase the important political parties so as not to be inconvenienced by the will of the people in any given election, American style, will be stoned to death "quickly and mercifully" (apologies to Jon Stewart).

Congratulations Egypt, your "dictators for life" have put on new party clothes.

This is the shape of a "hot house" revolution, incubated quickly at a high temperature, or to put it another way, this is a "preemie revolution". We had the "color" revolutions in the old Soviet Bloc and now we have the "preemie" (prematurely born) revolutions in the mideast.

Instead of having established rebel leaders in those countries, who have worked for years building organizations and readying themselves to assume power, who have a program in mind, who have the best interests of the people at heart, the globalists will manipulate these leaderless, "preemie" revolutions and groom their own leaders who they control from the outset.

This is the paradigm of "change" in the middle east.

It's the latest in seeming to foster, but really sabotaging democracy by the elite.

Why is it people think democracy is a good thing? Mob rule, big brother ... ya you will get what you want I guess

Originally posted by berilium
Why is it people think democracy is a good thing? Mob rule, big brother ... ya you will get what you want I guess

It boils down to "many hands make light work", "two heads are better than one", that sort of thing. Democracy is good. Even dictators use it widely in efforts that don't touch them personally, and when they really decide to go it alone, they usually destroy themselves.

The subversion of democracy is a bad thing, a tendancy toward dictatorship, a way of saying that my/our interests trump everyone else's interests, money doing all the talking.

"Democracy" has become the revolutionary byword, much to my chagrin. All the politicians and pundits use it as though it were some sort of great solution for the problems of any country. All true I suppose when they know that Democracies can be bought and leaders installed to carry out the Corporate agenda.
Americans are still asleep to the fact that E-voting has handily circumvented the will of the people. I don't know if countries in the middle east will have the same blind faith in digital machinery that we Westerners do but it will be interesting to see if Black box voting shows up in these countries.
My question is this: If Mubarak and others were doing their jobs ( by this I mean carrying out the will of their corporate masters) then why change? What is coming down the pike that they (the PTB) want these nations destabilized?
That is the $64,000 question I suppose.
I agree with your premise entirely. Why it is happening and where it goes from here still seem very vague to me however.

SF Great post. Isn't it wild to imagine the fact that one of these liberated countries may surpass the freedoms of the U.S.? It is quite inevitable for some one to get it right. With the ability of scholars and average citizens to gather information, I am sure that someone will make an example out of the U.S. policies involving corporate lobbying and the destruction of ecosystems by polution. I give the U.S. about 500 more years of global domination and more amazingly strange to think, but another super power will take our place somewhere else around the world. Could be Egypt, Libia, or anywhere else in the world. Do you think that a new breed of hybrid democracy is inevitable?

reply to post by Asktheanimals

Webster Tarpley has a wealth of good analysis of the globalist agenda on his website, www.tarpley.net, including the following on the subject of Mubarak's fall from grace:

tarpley.net...

Egypt under the now-deposed Hosni Mubarak was one of the most important of the nations playing the Iran card. In October 2010, defying Hillary Clinton’s shrill calls for the total isolation of Iran, Mubarak announced the resumption of direct flights from Cairo to Tehran for the first time in 30 years. In 2009, Mubarak had rejected the US plan for a Sunni Arab bloc of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council Emirates, and Jordan closely allied with Israel under a US nuclear umbrella, which Washington was seeking to play against the Persian-Shiite dominated radical bloc centered on Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and sundry rejection front forces. Mubarak rejected a military alliance with Israel, and had never fully normalized relations with that country, in spite of the Camp David Peace Treaty. Mubarak emphatically rejected US bases in Egypt, and no such bases were ever created. He refused US demands for Egyptian troops for the Afghanistan war starting in 2001, and for the Iraq war starting in 2003. Here was a very recalcitrant satrap indeed.